Let me say right off the bat that I'm not bashing all of the Catholic PEOPLE with this article. I do believe that there are very good Catholics with good consciences and morals who simply don't know the truth of their religion. It's the DOCTRINE that I'm going to expose and refute here.
Let me establish something else: In any of the Ancient Mystery Babylon daughter religions, whether it be Islam, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Free Masonry, Jehovah's Witness, etc, you have two circles: an outer circle and an inner circle. The outer circle is the post-card version that the public gets to see. It's filled with everyday people (some or most of them being very decent people) who are innocently ignorant of what the religion they're so devoted to is really all about. The inner circle is populated with initiated insiders who know very well that their religion is Luciferian and diabolical. I'm pointing this out to show that this article isn't to bash outer circle Catholics who may hold Catholicism near and dear to their heart because it's what they were raised up with and has been in their family for so long. Instead, this article is going to expose the Satanic agenda of the inner circle; those people that KNOW Catholicism is Satanic and indeed serve Satan. So, when you see me addressing "Catholics" below in an aggressive manner, please know that it's being directed towards the ones who KNOW the true, inner spiritual nature of this system, and still try to defend it. To make this a little clearer, I'm going to refer to these people as Catholic apologists throughout this article. (Apologist simply means defender.)
The first thing I want to do is give you a narrative, a summarized list of offenses that you can copy and paste into any online discussion you might come across where some light needs to be shed on the evils of Catholicism:
(1) The Catholic Easter Exsultet sings praise to Lucifer.
(2) The Catholic "Mary" is NOT the Mary of the Bible.
(3) Roman Catholicism may not be the ENTIRETY of the spiritual system known as the Whore of Babylon mentioned in Revelation chapters 17 and 18, and in other places in the Bible, but it is definitely one of the biggest manifestations of it, and you'll see why.
(4) Roman Catholicism exalts a bunch of man-made traditions and rituals over the commandments of God (Mark 7:7-9).
Now, let's start addressing the items in this list. Bear with me on this part. It may take a while to get this part done and a lot of what you might see below is part of an older article on Catholicism, which will eventually be updated and revised with the new material.
The Catholic Easter Exsultet sings praises to Lucifer:
Let's start with that nasty Catholic Easter Exsultet. If anything will prove to you that Catholicism was authored by Satan, this is it, and I want to show you how to disarm a Catholic apologist's defense of it. And if you find any of the following too hard to believe, just google 'Easter Exsultet' to see for yourself. In it they say the words,
"Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat: ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum. Christus Fílius tuus,"
"May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son,
Now, when you point out this usage of the term 'lucifer' to a Catholic apologist, they're going to try to claim that 'lucifer' is actually referring to Jesus, and that Jesus is the one the Exsultet is really giving praise to. The "proof" they're going to offer is that both Lucifer and Jesus are called the 'Morning Star' in the Bible. BUT, what they're doing when they say that is sneakily taking one reference to the devil in the King James Bible that calls the devil 'Lucifer' (Isaiah 14:12) and super-imposing it over the perverted VATICAN versions of the Bible (the NIV, NASB, ESV, CEV, etc, etc), which call the devil the "morning star" in the same verse. Then they say, "See? Lucifer means morning star! And since Jesus called himself the morning star too in Revelation 22:16, Lucifer and Jesus mean the same thing! So.... Praise Lucifer!" (Isn't it curious that they don't just use the name 'Jesus' if they're so similar? Hmmmm, I wonder why not.)
When you call them out on this sneaky overlay, what they're going to say next is: "Yeah, but the Hebrew word 'heylel' in Isaiah 14:12 actually DOES translate to 'morning star,' so, it IS calling the devil the morning star!
They're actually somewhat correct on this. The Hebrew word used in the original Hebrew is indeed 'heylel,' which means 'shining' or 'glorious' and could possibly even extend to meaning 'morning star,' since Satan is an angel (2nd Corinthians 4:4, and angels are referred to as stars (Revelation 1:20), and since Satan was called the Son of the morning (Isaiah 14:12). But the King James translators knew what they were doing when they called the devil 'Lucifer' instead of 'morning star.' And here's why:
It is interesting to note that the concept of the "morning star" is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In 1st Peter 5:8, Satan is compared to a lion, seeking someone to devour. The point is this, both Jesus and Satan, to a certain extent, have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King, He is royal and majestic. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. That is where the similarities between Jesus, Satan, and lions end, however. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways.
The idea of a "bright morning star" is a star that outshines all the others. Satan, as perhaps the most beautiful creation of God, probably the most powerful of all the angels, was a bright morning star. Jesus, as God incarnate, the Lord of the universe, is THE bright and morning star. Jesus is the most holy and powerful "light" in all the universe. So, while both Jesus and Satan can be described as "bright morning stars," in no sense is this equating Jesus and Satan. Satan is a created being. His light only exists to the extent that God created it. Jesus is the light of the world (John 9:5). Only Jesus’ light is self-existent. Satan may be a bright morning star, but he is only a poor imitation and counterfeit of the one true bright morning star, Jesus Christ, the light of the world. He is the little 'g' god, who's always trying to be like the capital 'G' God (2nd Corinthians 4:4), and tries to counterfeit the aspects of God in every way he can. In fact, the verses that follow Isaiah 14:12 prove that Satan does JUST THAT. Look at verse 14 closely.
Isaiah 14:12-14 (King James Bible)
12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
The King James translators took into mind the devil's attempts to counterfeit the aspects of God. To distinguish between the real God and the wannabe god, the King James translators used a proper noun (which means someone's name) for the devil (Lucifer) that first appeared in Jerome's Latin vulgate and essentially means "light bearer." They did this because Satan appears as an angel of light.
2nd Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
It's important to convey that the word 'Lucifer' only roughly translates to "light-bearer" because the word 'Lucifer' is a proprietary NAME phonetically based on the Latin words that mean "light-bearer." It is not a generic expression. No honest translator will translate the word 'lucifer' to anything but "Lucifer." Let me give you an example of what I mean here:
We've all heard of Nyquil, the nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, aching, coughing, stuffy-head, fever, so you can rest medicine. The name 'Nyquil' is a conjunction of the words 'night' and 'tranquil,' (and Dayquil is obviously a conjunction of the words 'day' and 'tranquil'), but when you say 'Nyquil' people know that you are talking about a certain brand of medicine and not referring generically to any ole tranquil night. And if you were to type in 'Nyquil' into a translator, say, English to Spanish for example, the only thing you would get back in return is 'Nyquil,' not 'noche tranquilo.' Nyquil is a specific name phonetically based on the words 'night' and 'tranquil,' but meant to let the reader or hearer know that it's referring to a specific medicine. Same with the word 'Lucifer.' It's a NAME, probably given by Jerome, but still a name, nonetheless. And the name 'Lucifer' does not translate in any way to 'morning star,' people. The matches made between 'Lucifer' and 'morning star' in so many concordances and translators are merely based on an association that has been handed down and passed along so many times, it's eventually come to just be accepted as fact.
Do you see what the Catholics insiders tried to do? They tried to use the King James translators' disambiguation between the true light (Jesus, the Morning Star) and the fake light (Lucifer, the light-bearer) as a way to give praise to the devil and claim that they're praising Jesus. Do you see how they ended up telling on themselves, though? By thinking they could get away with mis-translating 'Lucifer' as 'morning star' and not realizing that people would do their own research and find out that 'Lucifer' is a proper noun which does not translate to 'morning star,' they ended up revealing who their true god is (the devil), and proving, yet again, that the King James Bible was the only inspired Bible in English.
And here's a good follow up question: If the name 'Lucifer' is referring to Jesus in the Easter Exsultet, why does it say that Christ is his son? Why would Christ be Jesus' son? How could that even work? Makes you wonder which "Christ" the Easter Exsultet is referring to, doesn't it? Because Lucifer, the devil, most certainly has a son:
2nd Thessalonians 2:3 & 9
3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
9. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
What's really creepy about this re-naming of Jesus to Lucifer in the Exsultet, considering that we are indisputably in the end times of the Bible, is that it only recently started in 2012. It's as if the Mother Whore is calling for the Beast she will ride in on.
If you want to read more proof that the name 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12 refers to the devil and is not another name for Jesus, please click on the following link to an excellent article by David W. Daniels:
'Lucifer' means the devil, not Jesus.
Also, if you google the Exsultet and read through it, you'll find another part of it that says,
"O truly necessary sin of Adam,
destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault
that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!"
Yes, the Catholic Exsultet claims that sin was necessary. I guess this is how Bishops and Cardinals justify molesting children. Curiously, this tenet that sin is "necessary" is found within the Muslim hadiths, as well:
(Sahih Muslim 6621)
Aby Ayyub Ansari reported that Allah's messenger said: If you were not to commit sins, Allah would have swept you out of existence and would have replaced you with another people who have committed sin, and then asked forgiveness from Allah, and he would have granted them pardon.
Of course, this isn't surprising, seeing as how Islam is simply a daughter religion of Mother Babylon (Catholicism). Same with Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Scientology, Seventh Day Adventism, etc, etc. But that's another post.
But do you see what this DOES? It makes good ole Satan a HERO! Why, if he hadn't led us to sin we would have been wiped out by God, right? Sneaky, sneaky.
Now, I know that a lot of Catholics are unaware that such things are lurking under the surface of the traditions their dear families have adhered to for generations. But like the Bible says, after becoming aware of things like this, we become accountable for them (James 4:17, 2nd Peter 2:21, John 9:41). And once you find out that the Holy Spirit foes NOT reside in your religious tenets and traditions (Eucharist, Sacraments, Catechism, etc), and that you have been duped into unwittingly worshipping Satan, to boot, it's time to leave your cult and come home to being a Bible believing Christian.
The Catholic Mary is NOT the Mary of the Bible:
Now, let's talk about Mary, and by Mary I mean the Catholic "Mary." First, let's show that the Catholic Mary is not the Mary of the Bible, and then let's show that the Catholic Mary (and the whole Catholic Church system) is merely the current disguise and manifestation of the Mother of Harlots, the apostate religious system mentioned in Revelation chapters 17 and 18. You're going to see very quickly why the Catholic apologists of old hated the Bible, and why the Catholic Inquisitors sought to burn every Bible they could find.
In Catholicism, Mary is described as being an eternal virgin, even after the birth of Jesus:
"The Council of Lateran, 649.
In October, 649, three months after his consecration, Pope St. Martin I (649-653) summoned a Council to the Lateran palace in Rome to condemn the heresy of the Monothelitic heresy (see intod. to 431) The third canon, given below, contains a defense of the true motherhood of Mary and of her perpetual virginity.
3. If anyone does not profess according to the holy Fathers that in the proper and true sense of the holy, ever-Virgin, immaculate Mary is the mother of God, since in this last age not with human see but of the Holy Spirit she properly and truly conceived the divine Word, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and gave him birth without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolable even after his birth: let such a one be condemned (see 421)"
- (# 505, 'The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation' 2009, pg. 205)
Of course, the only way Mary could have done this was to have withheld her body from Joseph, preserving her immaculate virginity so she could be worshipped as the pristine "Queen of Heaven." Not only is withholding your body from your spouse a SIN, as Paul shows in 1st Corinthians 7:3-5. but the REAL Mary had more children AFTER Jesus, who were born NOT of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus was, but out of the union of her and Joseph. See, the real Mary was a RIGHTEOUS woman and did not withhold her body from her husband, nor did Joseph withhold his body from Mary. Anyway, let's look at some scripture that proves that Mary had more children AFTER Jesus:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
If Jesus was Mary's only child, then why does the Bible call Jesus her FIRST born? Here's another passage:
46. While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his BRETHREN stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49. And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Some people use this passage to try and show that those who were called Jesus' brethren were simply his disciples, but notice WHY he had to say what he said. These people were telling him that his familial brethren - brothers to him through Mary - were outside waiting with Mary to talk to him. He was pointing out that even though they were his family, his brethren was anyone that followed his commandments. But now let's see some hard proof that Mary had more children than Jesus:
55. Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56. And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57. And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Again, some people might try to say that because of the word 'brethren' James, Joses, Simon and Judas were simply disciples, but in the gospel of Mark it says "the brother of":
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the BROTHER of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
And for iron-clad proof that there was a distinction between his brethren and his disciples, look at these verses:
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
See that? His brethren and his disciples are mentioned separately. From these passages we can know that Mary had at least SIX more children after Jesus. She had four more sons, James, Joses, Simon and Judas and although we don't know how many daughters she had, we know she had at least TWO because the word 'sisters' is plural. We can confirm James and Joses as half-brothers to Christ by another verse:
55. And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
56. Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
This poses a real problem for the perpetual virginity of Mary, doesn't it?
Let's move on to some Bible verses that show that Mary is not a deity and not to be worshipped:
11. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Tell me something, if Mary was the holy, immaculate "Queen of Heaven," why didn't the wise men fall down and worship HER along with Jesus? If God was warning them with a dream not to return to Herod, wouldn't he have given them some insight as to the holiness and deity of Mary too? Wouldn't he have rebuked them for not bowing down and worshipping her? Let's look at another verse:
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
The "other Mary" mentioned there is the mother of Jesus. Notice that God's word doesn't call her "holy, immaculate, sinless Queen of Heaven" etc, etc. It simply calls her "the other Mary." See, when you read the Bible you realize that Mary was just another Christian. She was just another person like you and me that needed a savior. She even said that herself:
Luke 1: 46-47
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.
But wait! Why would you need a savior if you're sinless? Do the Catholic apologists claim that Mary was sinless? Of course they do:
"Mary shares our human condition but in complete openness to the grace of God. Not having known sin, she is able to have compassion on every kind of weakness. She understands sinful man and loves him with a mother’s love." - (John Paul II's 'Book of Mary' 1996, p. 18)
Is there an example of Mary sinning in the Bible? Yep. This next passage is going to take out two birds with one stone. It's going to give us an example of Mary sinning and it's going to show us that Jesus wasn't in cowering obedience to his mother, as the Catholic doctrine proclaims. According to Catholic doctrine, Jesus never said no to Mary. She always got her way and commanded him like the holy "Queen of Heaven" that she was. But the Bible shows us this isn't true:
41. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
44. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
45. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
46. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50. And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
First up, let's see where Mary was sinning in that passage. It's subtle and you have to look close to catch it. Notice that in verse 48, Mary calls Joseph Jesus' father and notice that it's with a lower case 'f'. Notice that Jesus refers to his REAL Father in verse 49 and it's with an upper case 'F'. Remember, Mary was pulling Jesus away from a crowd of influential people and out of embarrassment, she had just proclaimed that his father was Joseph, probably contradicting what Jesus had just been telling the doctors and lawyers there, which was that GOD was his Father. And what happens next? Gasp! Did a 12 year old Jesus really correct and rebuke the holy, immaculate, sinless "Queen of Heaven" Mary?!? Gasp again! And not only that, but if the "Queen of Heaven" is so holy and immaculate, why does verse 50 say that she couldn't even understand what a 12 year old Jesus was saying to her? Heck, how did the sinless, perfect, immaculate "Queen of Heaven" travel a whole day's journey away from town without knowing Jesus wasn't with them? I'll tell you why. Because she wasn't sinless and perfect. She was just another Christian who can make mistakes, like you and me.
If Mary was born sinless and remained sinless, why did she have to be purified after giving birth to Jesus? Here, take a look:
21. And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22. And when the days of her PURIFICATION according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
Notice it says "according to the Law of Moses." Guess what? That means we can find it in the Old Testament:
2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
6. And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7. Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
Notice that verse 2 says "she shall be unclean." Guess what? This applied to Mary too, as we saw in Luke's gospel.
Anyway, moving on, here's a good example of Jesus having to get a little short and direct with Mary:
1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
What?? Did Jesus just call the holy, immaculate, sinless "Queen of Heaven"..... 'woman'? And with that kind of disrespectful tone? And did he really say, "What have I to do with thee?" Yep. He sure did. Why? Because, again, the REAL Mary was not immaculate, sinless or the Queen of Heaven, she was simply another Christian, like you and me, and could sin. Jesus was reprimanding her for trying to bark out an order to him. He was God manifest in the flesh, after all, and he was reminding her of that.
Hey, have you noticed that Catholic Impostor Mary's sinlessness and perpetual virginity isn't holding up to scripture? You know what else doesn't hold up to scripture? The Assumption of Mary. This is the Catholic teaching that Mary, having no sin and therefore unable to die, was simply caught up into heaven. But the Catholics claim this is found somewhere in scripture:
"The universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth dwells, and which he infallibly guides to perfect knowledge or revealed truths, has shown its faith many times in the course of the centuries. Bishops from all over the world with almost perfect unanimity have petitioned that the truth of the corporal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary be defined as a dogma of the divine, Catholic faith. The truth of this dogma is based on SACRED SCRIPTURE..."
- (# 519, 'The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation' 2009, pg. 213)
Pray tell, stubborn Catholic apologists, in WHAT CHAPTER and VERSE of the Bible have you ever found anything about Mary ascending into heaven? NONE So where do the Catholics get this idea from? They tell us in the next paragraph of the same text:
"We, therefore, after humbly and repeatedly praying to God, and calling upon the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of almighty God, who has shown great and particular love for the virgin Mary, for the honor of his Son, the king of immortal ages and the conqueror of sin and death, for the increase of the glory of his great mother, for the joy and exultation of the whole Church, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blesses apostles Peter and Paul, and by OUR OWN AUTHORITY, do pronounce, declare and define as a divinely revealed dogma: The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, after her life on earth, was assumed, body and soul, to the glory of heaven.
- (# 520, 'The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation' 2009, pg. 213)
Why, it's by their OWN authority that they come up with such nonsense. Just like everything else in Catholic doctrine. The traditions of MEN over the word of God, remember?
6. He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the TRADITION OF MEN, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep YOUR OWN TRADITION.
The Second Vatican Council referred in its document 'Lumen gentium' to Mary as "Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix." In other words, they're calling Mary a mediator between God and man, but the Bible says that there is only ONE mediator between God and man, which is Jesus Christ:
1st Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant...
Know what's even more messed up than calling Mary a mediatrix? Calling her the mediatrix of ALL graces, meaning that she is the ONLY mediator. The Catholics can't decide if this is true or not, so they're voting on it. Let that sink in for a second. They're VOTING on Mary's power, just like they've voted on God's power before. See what I mean about Catholicism being just a bunch of man-made baloney? I believe the Lord's prayer says "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven," NOT "Thy power be determined in heaven, as it is voted upon on earth."
Here's one you'll REALLY get a kick out of: Catholic apologists call their holy, immaculate, ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven" the Queen of the Martyrs:
"...Bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, truly the Queen of Martyrs, she more than all the faithful filled up "what is lacking of the sufferings of Christ... for his body, which is the Church."
- (# 518, 'The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation' 2009, pg. 212)
If you're a true, Bible believing Christian, that should almost give you an aneurysm. The Whore of Babylon, the Catholic Church IS the one who martyred the Christians. And now she's being called the QUEEN of the martyrs?!? Wow, I dread to think of the hell waiting for whoever wrote that entry if they don't get out of Catholicism and turn to Christ. And don't worry, we're going to get into details of just how horribly the Mother Whore persecuted, murdered and martyred the saints a little later.
Now, the Catholic apologist will try to discredit the Bible and say that it's merely 66 books of Protestant canon (but they will still cherry-pick verses from it that they think support Catholic doctrine, of course), and they'll say that the Catechisms, Sacraments, and Liturgies and so forth take precedence over the Bible, but I'll take my instruction and guidance from the much older accounts of the gospels over the Catholic tenets, which were written long afterwards, any day of the week, thank you.
Roman Catholicism IS part of Mystery Babylon!
This particular debate has gone on between Christians and Catholics for quite some time, but it's really not too hard of a task to prove that Roman Catholicism belongs to Mystery Babylon. The proof is easily found within the reason as to why the Whore of Babylon is called a whore in the first place.
Biblically, a spiritualized woman represents a religious system. There are only two; One is the true, Christian church, which is a faithful wife espoused to one husband, Jesus Christ. The other is an apostate church, which is an unfaithful harlot espoused to many husbands and suitors because they come from her own many members and claim to be gods, themselves.
Let's back that up with scripture. The Christian church is the body of Christ, and from this body comes a bride to Christ. She only has ONE husband, who is Christ:
2nd Corinthians 11:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to ONE husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
1st Corinthians 6:15
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
On the contrary, the harlot "church" has many husbands and lovers because she has many gods. The important thing to remember about Mystery Babylon, however, is that these "gods" come from within the members of this apostate church, itself. This is going to be very important, and we can prove that this particular aspect is true with scripture. This will take quite a bit of scripture, so buckle in.
Again, let me re-iterate: If a religious system is based on a doctrine wherein the members call themselves gods, then the womanly spouse that comes from the body of such a system HAS to be a HARLOT. She won't be faithful to just the one, true God. She's only faithful to herself.
The person that's going to help us prove that Mystery Babylon is full of people who call themselves gods is none other than good ole Jezebel. Get over here, Jezebel. Let's see what Jesus has to say about you. This is Jesus talking to the church of Thyatira:
20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Now, obviously, Jesus isn't speaking to the real person Jezebel here, because she'd been dead for quite some time at the time John was writing the book of Revelation. But, from verse 24 we can tell that this is referring to a spiritual DOCTRINE, or a type of religious system. But, notice, specifically, that it's called a doctrine from the depths of Satan. Let's see what kind of doctrine lies at the heart of Satan:
12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Well, now. Imagine that. At the heart of Satan lies the desire to take God's place. "... ye shall be as gods..." (Genesis 3:5). Know any religious systems wherein people equate themselves to gods, or potential gods? Hmmm.
Now, some people might say that this doesn't really link this Jezebel spirit to Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots, but notice that Jesus says he's going to kill her CHILDREN. Keep that in mind, because it's going to be just one of a long list of correlations we're about to see between this Jezebel doctrine and Mystery Babylon.
So, we know that she's going to lose children (and just as Jezebel is a spiritual system in this passage, so are her children, which are branch apostate religions that have descended from the Mother of Harlots. Islam, for example).
Next, notice that Jezebel was a whorish witch:
2nd Kings 9:22
And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?
Now, notice that that the Whore of Babylon calls herself a queen and proclaims that she will never be a widow, and notice that her destruction comes quickly within one day, and that she's burned with fire:
7. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
Now keep all of the correlations we've covered thus far in mind as we read this next passage: She sits on a throne as a queen (verse 1), shame and nakedness revealed (verses 2-3), loss of children (verse 8), thinks she'll never be a widow (verse 8), her destruction comes within one day (verse 9), sorcerous witch (Verses 12-13), and burned with fire (verse 14).
1. Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.
2. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
3. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.
4. As for our redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.
5. Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called, The lady of kingdoms.
6. I was wroth with my people, I have polluted mine inheritance, and given them into thine hand: thou didst shew them no mercy; upon the ancient hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke.
7. And thou saidst, I shall be a lady for ever: so that thou didst not lay these things to thy heart, neither didst remember the latter end of it.
8. Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
9. But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments.
10. For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.
11. Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know.
12. Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail.
13. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.
14. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.
That's her, alright! Mystery Babylon. The spirit of Jezebel. Isaiah was prophesying about her future destruction. Something else we can gather from her comparison to Jezebel is that she, although just a spiritual system, usurps and reigns over political authorities, barking out orders to her many kings, just as Jezebel held screeching authority over her husband, King Ahab. This next passage shows us that this Mother of Harlots is a spiritual system that holds sway over all sorts of countries, races and governments:
Revelation 17:1-2 & 15
1. And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2. With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
15. And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
We can see that back in the day, she even held sway over huge cities like Ninevah:
4. Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts.
5. Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.
6. And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock.
7. And it shall come to pass, that all they that look upon thee shall flee from thee, and say, Nineveh is laid waste: who will bemoan her? whence shall I seek comforters for thee?
Mystery Babylon is a spiritual system that infiltrates political systems and eventually takes over, riding on their backs and pulling their reins. It's why she's called the "lady of the kingdoms," as we saw in Isaiah 47:5, above. It is a system in which man declares himself to be God and, thus, fit to rule over governments. She's a tyrant.
In contrast, notice that the godly wife will not usurp the rule of her husband:
1st Timothy 2:11-13
11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Getting back to the nature of Mystery Babylon, she also kills godly people who preach against her:
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Jezebel did the same, of course (the words "cut off" in the next verse mean "murdered")
1st Kings 18:4
For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.
And Mystery Babylon's end will be the same as that of Jezebel: Thrown down to be eaten by the dogs and left on the fields as dung:
2nd Kings 9:30-37
30. And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.
31. And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?
32. And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs.
33. And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trode her under foot.
34. And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said, Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her: for she is a king's daughter.
35. And they went to bury her: but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands.
36. Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel:
37. And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel.
And next we see her fate in the book of Revelation. Know who it is that kills her? Why, it's the very beast she rode in on: The Anti-Christ, Satan incarnate. Know why Satan ends up hating the Whore of Babylon? Because HE wants to be God (2nd Thessalonians 2:4) and in the end, Satan and the Whore end up in bitter competition. What a beautiful relationship, right? Notice that the horns of the beast eat her flesh, just as the dogs ate Jezebel:
16. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
18. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
I think it's safe to say the nature and behavior of Mystery Babylon can be made into a check list. We can know that a religious system is part of Mystery Babylon if:
(1) It's a system wherein people call themselves gods or potential gods.
(2) It tries to usurp political authority of governments and countries all over the world.
(3) It kills godly people that exposes its evils.
Hmmmm. Know any religious systems that have ever done some one or more of those things? Hello, Inquisitions! Hello, Jesuits! Hello, Popes! Hello, Vicars!
"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth." - (Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, 'Cities Petrus Bertanous' chapter 27, pg. 218)
Hello, Luciferians! Hello, Eugenicists! Hello, Globalists! Hello, New Age Mystics! Hello, Transhumanists! Hello, Wiccans! Etc, etc.
Like I said, Roman Catholicism isn't the entirety of Mystery Babylon, but it IS the current and biggest manifestation of it. All religious systems that believe the lie, "thou shalt be as gods" are part of Mystery Babylon. When the Bible speaks of the "daughters" of Babylon, it's referring to those splinter religions that have derived from Ancient Mystery Babylon, and teach in some way that man can become God. You may think that those Buddhists, Wiccans and New-Agers are all about meditation, hugs and granola now, but wait until the vicious Jezebel spirit of the original Mystery Babylon system comes riding back in on the back of the Anti-Christ system and gathers all of her daughters back to her. She'll be having the saints on the earth in the time of Jacob's Trouble killed left and right. And she's definitely going to show back up.
Remember, when Jesus gave John the Revelation, he said, "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation," (Revelation 2:22). He was talking in a future sense about the Time of Jacob's Trouble, which is Daniel's 70th week. Mystery Babylon will walk the earth one last time, and she will be very provocative. Best to get saved NOW and avoid such a time of temptation and persecution!
Now, I'm going to use someone's attempt to DEBUNK the connections between the Whore of Babylon and Roman Catholicism to further prove the connections. (For one thing, I've seen a lot of Catholics referring to this article I'm about to show you, and I'd like to show you how to pick it apart, should it get hurled at you.)
If you ever cite Alexander Hislop's book "The Two Babylons" to a Catholic apologist as proof that Roman Catholicism is a huge part of the Whore of Babylon, you'll probably be given the following article to read as "proof" that the connections are all false. I'm going to give you a link to the article, and just in case it gets taken down or moved, I'm going to embed another article here that gives the text transcript of the article and screen-captured images of it. Take a moment to read through the article and then come back:
Ralph Woodrow's attempt to debunk the Babylon - Catholicism connection
And here is the link to the text transcript and screen captures, just in case his website gets taken down or moved:
Text transcript and screen captures
Here's the thing: None of what Mr. Woodrow wrote in that article actually debunks Hislop's book 'Two Babylons.' He simply debunks his OWN explication of it. Also, reading through it, it sounds as if Mr. Woodrow was either confronted by Jesuits and bribed or threatened to rescind his book, which is probably why he felt the need to pre-emptively counter suspicion of that in the article. Either that or he IS a Jesuit, who's task was to write such a book to appear as an authority on the matter and then rescind it to create a discrediting reference for all good Catholic apologists to point to whenever Hislop's Two Babylons gets brought up. I mean, for someone who spent so much time researching Hislop's book to say something like this...
"It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate - and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology."
...makes me wonder why he would have published such a book in the first place, you know, if "nothing" to support it could be found and all. Curious, isn't it?
And he goes on to merely make heavy use of a logical fallacy called 'Affirming the Consequent' to discredit the Catholic connections to Babylon. For example, he says that the Mother Whore carrying a cup in Revelation 17:4 can't possibly refer to Catholicism because the Lord carries a cup in Psalm 75:8. But he doesn't bother to mention that Revelation 17 also says the Mother Whore has committed fornication with the kings of the earth in verse 2 (Jesuit Infiltration of governments) and has slain the saints in verse 6 (Inquisitions, Roman Emperors, etc). God hasn't committed fornication with the kings of the earth and he isn't drunk on the blood of the saints.
Woodrow then tries to use peoples' ignorance of the Babylonian origin of certain practices as proof that they aren't Babylonian. For example, he says, "No Christian has ever gone to an Easter sunrise service to worship Baal." But ignorance isn't making sunrise services any less of a pagan, Babylonian practice. They ARE pagan, and the Bible proves it:
15. Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
16. And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
He says, "No Christian has ever worshipped a Christmas tree as an idol." But, again, ignorance of the Babylonian origins of this practice isn't making it any less of a Babylonian practice:
3. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
He tries to discredit the claim that Lent was originally a 40 day period of time weeping for Tammuz, but this is mentioned in the Bible too. Again, ignorance does not break the connection:
13. He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.
14. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
Tammuz was a BABYLONIAN god who was often worshipped as a golden bull, much like the one the Israelites made at Mt. Sinai. They spent 40 days weeping for Tammuz before they finally pressured Aaron to construct that golden bull in the image of Tammuz. God punished them by making them spend 40 YEARS wandering around in the wilderness. And you can see in this next passage how those 40 days equated to 40 years:
33. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
34. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each DAY for a YEAR, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
And here's one you REALLY need to pay attention to. That impostor Mary that Catholics call "The Queen of Heaven"? She's mentioned in the Bible too, and as a pagan goddess:
The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Did you catch the part about the little buns made to the queen of heaven? Like the little hot-cross buns made to the impostor Catholic "Mary"? The pagan Tau, named after the Hebrew letter Tav, looked like the 'T', the first letter of the name 'Tammuz.' They put that on those little cakes and offered them to their goddess. (And if you want to see the connection between Tammuz, the golden bull and the pagan cross, go read the article 'Why did Jesus have to die on a CROSS?')
The mystic Tau was outwardly a symbol of the Sun, and secrely a symbol of Satan's power of death. You can easily see the connection between weeping for Tammuz, the little cross buns and the pagan sunrise service. Easter Sunday is simply Ishtar's Sun worship Day, and Ishtar is a variant name of Ashtaroth. Thus, this queen of heaven figure is none other than Ashtaroth, also mentioned in the Bible:
And they forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
And we know that Ashtaroth went back to the original, ancient Babylon, because in the time of Abraham, a city had long since been named after her, just as a city had been named after Ham, one of Noah's three sons:
And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in ASHTEROTH Karnaim, and the Zuzims in HAM, and the Emins in Shaveh Kiriathaim,
Ashtaroth = Astarte, Ishtar, Oestre, Easter.
Another name for Ashtaroth is Aster, which means STAR, as in DIS-aster, a bad alignment of the stars. Curiously, there's a mention of a goddess who fell to earth like a star in the Bible:
34. But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
35. And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?
Hmmmm. What kind of god and goddess were Jupiter and Diana? That's right! ROMAN! In Rome there were all sorts of temples that honored Diana and Jupiter and their son, Bacchus (aka Mithra, Dionysus, etc), whose birthday was - get this - December 25th. Who else have the Catholics taught was born on December 25th? Why, Jesus, of course. However, the REAL Jesus' birthday was on the Feast of Tabernacles, some time around late September to early October, and for proof of that, go read the article 'Jesus was NOT born on December 25th!'. People, Roman Catholicism is simply the Mystery Babylon religion with a Christian candy-coating. The impostor Catholic versions of God the Father, Mary and Jesus are simply Jupiter, Diana and Dionysus, aka Baal, Ashtaroth and Tammuz, who all came from Babylon.
And to think, Woodrow had the gall to say, "Claims that imply all these things started in Babylon are not only divisive and fruitless, they are untrue."
What a Catholic apologist will do at this point is try to say that, just as pagans tried to preemptively counterfeit the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus with impostor pagan redeemers so Jesus would look like yet another impostor, so did they alter the texts of the Bible to include the name and title "Queen of Heaven" to make the Catholic Mary look like an impostor. In other words, Satan supposedly knew that Mary would be called the Queen of Heaven one day and altered the texts to make her look like an impostor. (Curiously, they're quick to claim that the Bible has been tampered with on issues like this, but, like I said earlier, they'll still cherry-pick verses from it that they think support Catholic doctrine.) If a Catholic apologist says this, remind them that Satan can't see the future (or he would have foreseen the outcome with trying to overthrow God, right?) After that, ask them why the CATHOLIC Duaoy Rheims Bible also condemns this goddess called the Queen of Heaven. Here, see for yourself:
Jeremiah 7:18 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition - DRA)
The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to offer libations to strange gods, and to provoke me to anger.
Uh Oh! Derailed by their own version of the Bible! Besides, if Catholics REALLY want to get into the matter of altering texts, you could always bring up the heretic Eusebius, who wrote the Vaticanus in 350 A.D. for Constantine. The Vaticanus was a corrupt plagiarism of the original Masoretic Hebrew and Syriac Greek texts in which Eusebius omitted almost all of Genesis, all of the book of the Revelation and Hebrews chapters 9-13. (He omitted Hebrews chapters 9 - 13 because those chapters explain the one-time blood sacrifice of Jesus that put an end to the need for continual sacrifices, which would put an end to the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the Catechism, and thus, all of Catholicism.)
In order to justify the title of "Queen of Heaven", Catholics might then say something to the effect of this:
"Adam and Eve were destined to be king and queen over the universe, to rule in God's stead and representing His authority over Creation. They failed and fell in sin. But that did not derail the plan of God. Now there is another man, the Last Adam (1st Corinthians 15:45) who is now King over all Creation. Therefore, in the restoration of Adam and Eve, there must also be a Queen. That is Mary."
That's a quote from a Catholic apologist that I debated in the past and I have to wonder if he even realized what he was implying with his "explanation" of the queen of heaven title. He said that Adam and Eve were KING and QUEEN. Uh, chapter and verse in the Bible, please? You won't find those titles applied to them anywhere in the Bible. Then he said that Adam broke the covenant and Jesus restored it and now HE is the king. That's true and can be found in the Bible. But then he said that his "queen" will be MARY! His own mother? Incest, really?!?
Jesus will have a BRIDE, not a queen. And his bride will be the true, Bible believing Christian church, by the way, NOT the Catholic church. SATAN is the one who will have a QUEEN:
Revelation 18:2 & 7
2. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, BABYLON the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
7. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a QUEEN, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
There she is, folks, the good ole "Queen of Heaven" aka Mystery Babylon, the Mother of
Let's get into how the Roman Catholic Church, aka Mystery Babylon, the Whore of Babylon has fornicated with all the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:2) by way of the Jesuit infiltration of all the governments and institutions of the world. You know, sometimes, when I'm facing some big, cumbersome, laborious research project that I'm dreading, I get lucky and find a blog where someone's already done all the work and I can just be wonderfully lazy and defer to their work. This is one of those cases. I was dreading having to look up all the details of the Jesuit infiltration into all the governments and institutions of the world, but Eric Jon Phelps already done the work, probably more than any other person alive today. Here is a link to this website. It is amazing and it is HUGE! Have fun! Be sure to clik on the tabs near the top to read through his articles:
Eric Jon Phelps exposes the Vatican
Also, be sure to watch these videos by Eric Jon Phelps. Lots of good information on the wickedness of the Vatican and the Jesuits:
Now, let's move on to the next charge against the Catholic Church, which is that they believe in giving certain men pre-eminence over others, and in such a way that aims to make those of higher rank infallible and immune to correction from those of lower rank.
In the book of the Revelation, Jesus says twice that he hates the deeds and doctrine of a group of people known as the Nicolaitans:
Revelation 2:6 (Jesus speaking to the Church of Ephesus)
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
Revelation 2:15 (Jesus speaking to the church of Pergamos)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
But who were the Nicolaitans, and what were their doctrine and deeds? One of the easiest ways to find out is to simply parse the etymology of the word 'Nicolaitans.'
In Greek, 'Niko' means 'victory' or 'triumph' over something, and Laiton means 'laity.' In its ecclesiastical setting, Nicolaitans means the bishops and prelates of the Church have gained a triumphal victory or conquest over the LAITON, the laity. Niko-laiton. Thus, the English contraction comes out to 'Nicolaitans.' Members are compelled and forced to submit to the arbitrary dominion of men who have gone beyond being examples to younger Christians, and become that thing which God hates:
1st Peter 5:1-3
1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3. NEITHER AS BEING LORDS OVER GOD'S HERITAGE, but being examples to the flock.
The teachings and preaching of the Nicolaitans are in religious and secular dictionaries. When we look for the definition of the term we find it is a "hierarchy: the power of dominion, government by ecclesiastical rulers" and then we find the following, which is offered as evidence:
"If anyone shall say that there is not in the Catholic Church a hierarchy established by the divine ordination, consisting of bishops, presbyters and ministers, let him be anathema."
- (Council of Trent XXIII 6.) (Century Dictionary)
You can tell that the heretical, post-apostolic, Alexandrian philosphers (disguised as early Christian "church fathers") knew the term 'Nicolaitans' as given in the book of the Revelation referred to such a love of rank and preeminence as theirs because of the obvious 'damage control' efforts they had to make to associate the term with someone else.
Irenaeus, (one of those heretical, early church fathers), claimed that the term 'Nicolaitans' referred to a gnostic sect named after Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch (mentioned in Acts 6:5), and who supposedly adhered to anti-nomianism. Anti-nomianism is basically the belief that so long as you believe the mercy of God is the ground of salvation you can freely partake in sin because the Law of God is no longer binding. "Greasy grace," or "easy-believism," as some call it. But remember that Irenaeus was also a liar. For example, he claimed he got his authority and teachings from disciples of John, but then he turned around and claimed it was apostolic teaching that Jesus was over 50 when he died. That is pure hogwash and easily refuted by scripture. And that couldn't have come from the apostles or their disciples, no matter what Irenaeus claimed. So you can pretty much rule out any reference made to Irenaeus for credibility. If he was claiming that the Nicolaitans' doctrine was that of easy believism, you can bet it was something else entirely. It's not hard to see what Irenaeus was trying to do here. He was trying to take out 3 birds with one stone. He was trying to disassociate himself and his fellow Alexandrian philosphers from the incriminating title of Nicolaitians, he was reinforcing the hell-spawned doctrine of "works salvation" without which, Catholicism would be irrelevent, and he was trying to besmirch those pesky, true Christians from Antioch. If you read Acts 6:1-9, you'll see that the disciples were looking for seven men filled with the Holy Ghost to preside over a troublesome matter and Nicolas was chosen, along with 6 others, one of which was Stephen, the man who got a standing ovation from Jesus himself when he was martyred (Acts 7:54-60). Pretty decent association, if you ask me. So, from where did Irenaeus get the idea that Nicolas was an apostate teaching easy-believism? Stephen went on to perform many wonders and miracles, and - get this - ran into arguments from the ALEXANDRIANS, Libertines, Cyrenians and others, who resorted to deception, bribery and coercion to set up false witnesses against Stephen. Sound like the Inquisitions, doesn't it?
The Apostle John gave us a grand example of what kind of people try to set up preeminence over the brethren:
3rd John vs. 9-11
9. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
11. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
Roman Catholicism exalts a bunch of man-made traditions and rituals over the commandments of God (Mark 7:7-9).