I am starting to REALLY like the Catholics (OC plz read)

[BradtheImpaler]

As you know this Jesus Christ can only be understood and known in a personal relationship with and through the Holy Orthodox Church

Is this the official position of the Orthodox Church?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I've been thinking about an orthodox/Catholic reuniting today. It's not going to happen

Is that a "thus sayeth the Lord?"

but I was reflecting on the backlash that there would be if the resulting resolution included denial of Papal infallibility vs. a resolutoin that simply acknowledged the authority of Rome which is not denied in any official cannon anywhere that I know of. I can tell you from a Catholic perspective that a denial of Papal infallibility would result in my believing that the gates of hell had prevailed. I say this with full confidence that Christ's words are true and the gates shall not prevail.

Now you may say, oh well that is not what that verse means. In Catholicism it is EXACTLY what that verse means is the point. It doesn't matter what yo u believe it means with regard to some future resolution where the Churches are united. The Catholic Church will simply not change it's position on the matter. Not because of the fallout, per se, that would indeed occur, and of which I am sure they would be very well aware of if the discussions got in to that territory, but because it simply veiws it as a truth of scirpture that it has not power to go against or change.

Blessings

And here you contradict the words of your new Pope, who has made one of his chiefest priorities of his papacy reconiliation with the East. He has called upon clergy and laity to assist in the promotion of this cause.

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=255&sid=532621

Thus, you have both denied the declaration of your Bishop, and have endevored to work against his stated intent.

Did you say that you were a Catholic?

First of all my Bishop is Harry Flynn. An Archbishop by the way. Benedict XVI is my Pope. Secondly could you perhaps spell out how I contradicted him. I read the article and don't see it. If your going to accuse I think it best that you substantiate your accusations rather than just posting a link.

Blessings to ya.

As I have stated, it is the stated goal and intent of your Pope to reunite with the Orthodox
Christianity Today June 17 2005

...Since Pope Benedict XVI was elected as the new pope after the late John Paul II, he has repeatedly vowed that uniting all Christians and healing the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox Church a "primary" task of his papacy.

I have not been able to locate the transcribed statement of Pope Benedict on his matter, but he called upon Catholic clergy and laity to assist and cooperate in the effort toward reconcilliation.

If I was attempting to reconcile my family with another part of my family that had become estranged, and one of my teenagers was busy telling his siblings AND the children of the other family I was attempting to reconcile with how it would never work, I think I'd go right upside the head of that rebellious teenager.
Selah

Regarding Benedict being your "bishop:"
My bad- make that your Patriarch.

James

 

[Orthodox Christian]

As you know this Jesus Christ can only be understood and known in a personal relationship with and through the Holy Orthodox Church

Is this the official position of the Orthodox Church?

The official position, as you put it, of the Orthodox Church, is that this is still a matter of some debate. The concept extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church no salvation) is both proposed by and rejected by scholars ancient and modern.

It is evident that many contemporary Orthodox theologians, although they have never surrendered the claim that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, are in no haste to call other Christian churches and communions non‑churches, void of God's salvific presence and action. They recognize that God is not limited by the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church in his work for the salvation of all.

Source

If you really wish to understand the complexities inherent in answering your question, Brad, first read the article sourced above (it is lengthy), and then realize that we Orthodox do not have a Catechetical definition on these matters.

Here's a classic example of the diversity of thought, practice, and opinion that exists within the Orthodox communion:
A Church which is highly sacramental, and which does not recognize the validity of salvation outside its communion, would not accept the sacraments of another church, would they??

In the Greek jurisdiction, all Baptisms done in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are accepted. I, having been baptzed Lutheran, was not rebaptized into the Orthodox faith- nor was my Catholic Godson when he came to the Orthodox Church.

In certain other jurisdictions, such as the Russian jurisdiction, Baptism must be performed in the Orthodox Church, and other baptisms are not considered valid.

We are still debating these matters within the Orthodox communion, and there are strong opinions on both sides. I think such an important matter deserves a lengthy and thorough debate.

Or perhaps 'hearing of the matter' would be a more palatable description of what is going on currently.

James

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The official position, as you put it, of the Orthodox Church, is that this is still a matter of some debate. The concept extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church no salvation) is both proposed by and rejected by scholars ancient and modern

But James, how can so essential a matter still be a subject of debate?

It is evident that many contemporary Orthodox theologians, although they have never surrendered the claim that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, are in no haste to call other Christian churches and communions non‑churches, void of God's salvific presence and action. They recognize that God is not limited by the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church in his work for the salvation of all.

If you accept that God's salvific action exists among other churches, how can you still regard the Orthodox Church as the "ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church"? Are you saying there is a universal church which is larger than the Orthodox and which contains ALL true Christians? Then wouldn't THAT be the one true church? Conversely, how can one be a Christian (at all) and not belong to the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church"?

If you really wish to understand the complexities inherent in answering your question, Brad, first read the article sourced above (it is lengthy), and then realize that we Orthodox do not have a Catechetical definition on these matters

I read it (okay, honestly, I "scanned" it and here's my gut feeling...

Your scholars believe it (no salvation outside the OC) or at least want to believe it, but to come out and clearly say that would ostracize the OC from the rest of organized Christendom, and they would be branded "cultic". That's my opinion, but what is not opinion is the contradiction between stating that a particular organization is the true apostolic church and then allowing that some believers in other churches may actually be true Christians also. If you're a true Christian you're PART of the true church aren't you?

 

[thessalonian]

That was a brain lock where I said it's not going to happen. My keys did not type what my brain was trying to say. The rest of my post makes it clear that I do not think it is impossible. That would be a denial of the power of God. Apologies for the foopaw. I am very hopeful that it will haapen. My point however, is that it's not going to happen if it means a denial of the infallibility of the POPE!

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The official position, as you put it, of the Orthodox Church, is that this is still a matter of some debate. The concept extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church no salvation) is both proposed by and rejected by scholars ancient and modern

But James, how can so essential a matter still be a subject of debate?

I would respond "how can such an important issue NOT be a matter of debate?"

[quote:38fe0]It is evident that many contemporary Orthodox theologians, although they have never surrendered the claim that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, are in no haste to call other Christian churches and communions non‑churches, void of God's salvific presence and action. They recognize that God is not limited by the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church in his work for the salvation of all.

If you accept that God's salvific action exists among other churches, how can you still regard the Orthodox Church as the "ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church"?

Note that in the statement above, it is God to whom we are referring. We are bound, but God is not. We do not limit what God may be able to accomplish outside the Orthodox Church. It is like Bishop Kallistos is fond of saying: There are seven known mysteries (sacraments), and innumerable unknown mysteries. God is not bound by these sacraments and ordinances- we are. Christ ordered baptism, and so we must be baptised. Can Christ save without baptism? Of course. He is "mighty to save."

But the person who presumes upon God by saying to himself "God can save anyways' then refuses baptism (for example) is guilty of tempting God and disobeying.



Are you saying there is a universal church which is larger than the Orthodox and which contains ALL true Christians? Then wouldn't THAT be the one true church? Conversely, how can one be a Christian (at all) and not belong to the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church?"

If you really wish to understand the complexities inherent in answering your question, Brad, first read the article sourced above (it is lengthy), and then realize that we Orthodox do not have a Catechetical definition on these matters

I am not saying that there is a larger, universal Church. Nor am I defining who is and who is not a "true Christian."

I was a Christian before I 'belonged' to the Orthodox Church. Apollos was a preacher of the gospel even before Prisca and Aquilla took him aside and tweaked his theology.

I have seen the analogy used of the Church being an ark, with many rafts strung together floating in the seas around the ark. The rafts are 'arks' in the sense of function and basic design.[/b]

I read it (okay, honestly, I "scanned" it and here's my gut feeling...

Your scholars believe it (no salvation outside the OC) or at least want to believe it, but to come out and clearly say that would ostracize the OC from the rest of organized Christendom, and they would be branded "cultic".
You have vastly misunderstood what was said and attributed to us a motive that is essentially dishonest and cowardly. We already are ostracized and branded as culticists- have you not been paying any attention around here? We really don't care about the PR angle.
That's my opinion, but what is not opinion is the contradiction between stating that a particular organization is the true apostolic church and then allowing that some believers in other churches may actually be true Christians also.

What is behind our internal debate is not magnanimity, nor compromise- what this is about is recognizing what we always have- that God is able to do just exactly what He wants to, and owes even His appointed Apostles and their descendants no explanation.

They recognize that God is not limited by the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church in his work for the salvation of all.

See this line from above? This is the proverbial hammer on the head of the nail: God is not limited.

If you're a true Christian you're PART of the true church aren't you?

Well, that's what the debate is all about- and btw, what do you mean by "belong?"[/quote:38fe0]

 

[Orthodox Christian]

That was a brain lock where I said it's not going to happen. My keys did not type what my brain was trying to say. The rest of my post makes it clear that I do not think it is impossible. That would be a denial of the power of God. Apologies for the foopaw. I am very hopeful that it will haapen. My point however, is that it's not going to happen if it means a denial of the infallibility of the POPE!

Very well- I think we all on both sides of the East/West issue understand that there are issues which seem impassable and impossible. This is a matter of the Holy Spirit leading the parties involved- partticularly the Bishops- to agreement. The manner in which the laity can best be of service is to pray for unity and for clear communication.

Imagine how Paul felt before going to the council at Jerusalem. It was unthinkable that the party of James would capitulate on matters of Torah.

But they did, and thusly One New Man, without the middle wall of division, found expression in diverse ways.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. By it the ancients were commended.

James

 

[bibleberean]

I hope true churches never join in the delusion of ecumenical bliss with apostate churches...

The Jews who did not receive the gospel were cursed.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

If the Law of Moses has ended in Christ and placed Israel under a curse imagine what the man made New Law of the harlot RCC has done!

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)

Council of Trent


Rome's false gospel has aided the ministers of darkness to perpetuate their counterfeit gospel and helped launch countless millions into a Christless eternity...

No compromise with the great whore!

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I hope true churches never join in the delusion of ecumenical bliss with apostate churches...

Fundamentalists and Landmarkists join the Body? It is impossible for the flies buzzing around the Body and their maggot offspring to be a part of that which they try to bite and devour. Flies and their offspring devour faeces and dead flesh and listen to their master, the Lord of Flies. They are frustrated around the True Body for there is no decay.

The Jews who did not receive the gospel were cursed.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

If we (Catholics and Orthodox) in fact are in some way to be compared to the Jews, then let Paul's warning about being conceited and haughty settle in your spirit: remember that the root supports the branch- and remember further, all of Israel shall be saved.

Nowhere is it written all of the Gentiles shall be saved. Of course, this is simply an analogy, for Paul was speaking quite literally about Israel, not about anyone or anything else.

If the Law of Moses has ended in Christ and placed Israel under a curse imagine what the man made New Law of the harlot RCC has done!

Imagine is right- this is what is the source of your doctrines- vain imaginations. We don't create doctrine out of vain imaginations as do the Landmarkists and the other schismaniacs.

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)

Jesus commanded baptism, commanded communion, commanded obedience to ALL that He taught to the Apostles. Those of you antinomians who would detract, subtract, compact, or otherwise impact said commandments are the least in the Kingdom of Heaven

Rome's false gospel has aided the ministers of darkness to perpetuate their counterfeit gospel and helped launch countless millions into a Christless eternity...

No compromise with the great whore!

The Great Whore speaks with many tongues, not one voice. She is drunk with the blood of martyrs, not made sober by considering their sacrifice.

Conscience demands I say no more.

James

 

[thessalonian]

The Great Whore speaks with many tongues, not one voice. She is drunk with the blood of martyrs, not made sober by considering their sacrifice.

Conscience demands I say no more.

Are you calling Rome/the papacy the Whore of Babylon? I know berean is. But it sure sounds like your agreeing with him. Are you?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The Great Whore speaks with many tongues, not one voice. She is drunk with the blood of martyrs, not made sober by considering their sacrifice.

Conscience demands I say no more.

Are you calling Rome/the papacy the Whore of Babylon? I know berean is. But it sure sounds like your agreeing with him. Are you?

Far from it, my friend. Rome speaks with one voice, as it is written, we should all say the same things. Rome is NOT drunk with the blood of the martyrs: rather, our brethren in the West have observed piety in considering the outcome of the race the martyrs and Saints have run.

As to whom the great Whore is, we shall not entertain speculation.

 

[fiat]

Thank you, OC.

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." (ibid., p. 52 -- Seventh Session, Sacraments In General, Canon 4)

Scripture tells us the Sacraments are necessary for salvation (note: God is not bound by them, but we are)

For example:
Eucharist- "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed..." John 6: 53-54

Baptism- "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Confirmation (or Chrismation for our Eastern brothers)- "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:1–2) Also see Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6

Annointing of the Sick- "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven" (Jas. 5:14–15).

Reconciliation- "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18).

and so on...

 

[bibleberean]

Identification of the Woman who rides the beast. The whore...

She is a city...

She sits on seven Hills...

"The woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. ... Here is the mind which hath wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth" (Revelation 17:18,9).

Only one city has for more than 2000 years been known as the city on seven hills. That city is Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, 1976, s.v. "Rome").

The Holy Roman empire has ruled and had power over the Kings of the earth.

She is a great whore who commits spiritual fornication with the rulers of the earth...

She has joined herself with pagan and heathen religions and promotes unity of false religions with the Church Christ built...

Rome has it's foundation in the Babylonian religion.

Her identifying name is "mystery". The Catholic church is known for it's many mysteries. She "trades in the souls of men". She sells mass cards, indulgences. Past popes have offered indulgences for fighting Holy wars etc....

Rome is clothed with "purple and scarlet..."

For the sake of brevity I will continue this in more posts to come....

 

[bibleberean]

Excerpt from the book "A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt

"Not only does Rome's pope call himself the vicar of Christ, but the Church he heads claims to be the one true Church and the bride of Christ. Christ's bride, whose hope is to join her Bridegroom in heaven, is to have no earthly ambitions. Yet the Vatican is obsessed with earthly enterprise, as history proves; and in furtherance of these goals it has been, exactly as John foresaw in his vision, engaged in adulterous relationships with the kings of the earth. That fact is acknowledge even by Catholic historians.

Christ said to His disciples, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19). The Catholic Church, however, is very much of this world. Her popes have built an unrivaled worldwide empire of property, wealth, and influence. Nor is empire-building an abandoned feature of the past. We have already seen the Vatican II clearly states that the Roman Catholic Church today still ceaselessly seeks to bring under its control all mankind and all their goods.

Popes have long claimed dominion over the world and its peoples. Pope Gregory XI's papal bull or 1372 (In Coena Domini) claimed papal dominion over the entire Christian world, secular and religious, and excommunicated all who failed to obey the popes and to pay them taxes. In Coena was confirmed by subsequent popes and in 1568 Pope Pius V swore that it was to remain an eternal law.

Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) claimed that all undiscovered lands belonged to the Roman Pontiff, for him to dispose of as he pleased in the name of Christ as His vicar. King John II of Portugal was convinced that in his Bull Romanus Pontifex the pope had granted all that Columbus discovered exclusively to him and his country. Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain, however, thought the pope had given the same lands to them. In May 1493 the Spanish- born Alexander VI issued three bulls to settle the dispute.

In the name of Christ, who had no place on this earth that He called his own, this incredibly evil Borgia pope, claiming to own the world, drew a north-south line down the global map of that day, giving everything on the east to Portugal and on the west to Spain. Thus papal grant, "out of the plenitude of apostolic power," Africa went to Portugal and to the America to Spain. When Portugal "succeeded in reaching India and Malaya, they secured the confirmation of these discoveries from the Papacy..." There was a condition, of course: "to the intent to bring the inhabitants...to profess the Catholic Faith" (Sidney Z. Ehler, John B. Morrall, trans. and eds., Church and State Through the Centuries, London, 1954, pp. 153-59; Hakluytus Posthumus, William Stansby for Henrie Fetherstone, London, 1625, as cited in Avro Manhattan, The Vatican Billions, Chino, CA, 1983, p. 90).

It was largely Central and South America which, as a consequence of this unholy alliance between church and state, had Roman Catholicism forced upon them by the sword and remain Catholic to this day. North America (with the exception of Quebec and Louisiana) was spared the dominance of the Roman Catholicism because it was settled largely by Protestants.

Nor have the descendants of Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas forgotten that Roman Catholic priests, backed by the secular sword, gave their ancestors the choice of conversion (which often meant slavery) or death. They made such an outcry when John Paul II in a recent visit to Latin America proposed elevating Junipero Serra (a major eighteenth-century enforcer of Catholicism among the Indians) to sainthood that the pope was forced to hold the ceremony in secret.

Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world; otherwise my servants would fight." The popes, however, have fought with armies and navies in the name of Christ to build a huge kingdom which is very much of this world. And to amass their earthly empire they have repeatedly engaged in spiritual fornication with emperors, kings, and princes. Claiming to be the bride of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church has been in bed with godless rulers down through history, and these adulterous relationships continue to this day.

This spiritual fornication will be documented in detail later."

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Identification of the Woman who rides the beast. The whore...

She is a city...

She sits on seven Hills...

"The woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. ... Here is the mind which hath wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth" (Revelation 17:18,9).

Only one city has for more than 2000 years been known as the city on seven hills. That city is Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, 1976, s.v. "Rome").

The Holy Roman empire has ruled and had power over the Kings of the earth.

She is a great whore who commits spiritual fornication with the rulers of the earth...

She has joined herself with pagan and heathen religions and promotes unity of false religions with the Church Christ built...

Rome has it's foundation in the Babylonian religion.

Her identifying name is "mystery". The Catholic church is known for it's many mysteries. She "trades in the souls of men". She sells mass cards, indulgences. Past popes have offered indulgences for fighting Holy wars etc....

Rome is clothed with "purple and scarlet..."

For the sake of brevity I will continue this in more posts to come....

This reads like cracked pot astrology or Nostradamus prophecies.

Firstly, there are many cities known for seven hills- but know this: The Vatican sits on one hill, not seven.

The Vatican is NOT Rome, the Vatican is in Rome. The Vatican does NOT reign over the kingdoms of the Earth. It doesn't even reign over Italy or the EU, and has tried with little success to even influence the EU constitution.

And then you propose that mystery is the mark of eveil- so all that does not commend itself to reason is considered evil?
Looks like Paul was Catholic:

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

: : : :

Fling, good man, fling.
James

 

[bibleberean]

She is drunk with the blood of the saints

No other church or entity on earth has spilled more blood than Rome's persecution of countless millions of saints who refused to bow before her authority and worship her wafer god and heathen statues...

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)."

--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

Excerpt from the

Anti Christ slide show....

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti1.htm

Christian friend, if YOU were before the Inquisition and they wanted you to say Jesus is a piece of bread, would you do it? Many of your brothers and sisters held out for the cause of Christ. They resisted to the blood striving against sin. Here are a just a few of the tortures they went through--

Skin flayed off of head, face and body

Nipples pulled off

Fried alive in pans

Bound to pillar head down and roasted

Mouth slit back to ears

Crucified upside down

Put in cauldrons of boiling oil

Thrown out of windows upon upward facing spears

Bodies gored through mouths with pikes

Arms cut off

Torturous slow burning e.g., burn soles of feet, then up to ankles, mid-calf, etc. until dead

Bellies burnt until bowels fell out

Women stripped, hung from tree by their hair and scourged

Tourniquet placed on head and twisted until eyes came out

Ears bored out

Tongue cut out

Set down (by pulley) into a fire by degrees

Thrown to dogs

Hung up by the heels and choked with smoke

Smothered in caves on mountains

Hearts pulled out, which the papists gnawed with their teeth.

Some roasted upon spits over a soft fire

Some had their bowels pulled out

A smith had his brains beaten out on his anvil with a hammer

Some had sharp instruments forced under their nails and other body parts

Some racked until their bowels broke out

Some had their throats cut with butcher knives

Knocked on the head with axes

Naked women left hung up by one leg on trees until they died

Some slain and their body parts set on stakes for 30 miles streches

Some had their noses and breasts pulled off with red hot pinchers

Some had their flesh torn with the claws of wild animals

Murdered in a church during sermon

Some hanged by one foot, their hands and breasts in the water

Some hung up by one hand with weights of lead at their heels
Two tied together and slain

Some were torn in pieces by horses

A legion of soldiers cut some to pieces with swords

Some had boots of boiling oil put on their legs over a small fire.

Some hung up on trees by the middle til they died of hunger

Women's bellies ripped up and their children trod underfeet

 

[bibleberean]

The seven hills of Rome

unbiased information sources...

Encyclopedia Brittanica online

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?to ... f+rome&ct=


http://ross.pvt.k12.ny.us/rome/hills/hills.html

http://www.roman-emperors.org/staticR.htm

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I include the whole of this Catholic answer to Dave Hunt because all of his theses have been mentioned on this thread.
source
I will split this into two posts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

#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 aboutâ€â€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 Cityâ€â€the city where the Catholic Church is headquarteredâ€â€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"â€â€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 textsâ€â€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 colorsâ€â€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 sex, 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)â€â€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) Jerusalemâ€â€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).

 

[JM]

OC, is it truth that one of your leaders of the past was a 5 pointer?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Part Two

-------------------------------
#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 Supperâ€â€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 Israelâ€â€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 disciplineâ€â€a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Churchâ€â€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 sex!


#8: Sheds the Blood of Saints



Hunt states, "John next notices that the woman is drunkâ€â€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.