The Whore of Babylon

[Rhyfelwyr]

As I said at the start, all Catholics can feel free to offer an alternative interpretation and tell me why this well established understanding of the scripture should be discarded. I didn't create this thread just because I stumbled across Ian Paisley's site, or just because I'm a Scottish Protestant. In the past I just always presumed the Catholic Church was Christian but maybe a little corrupt, when I came across the doctrine first it was in Calvin's 'Institutes' (a very thorough book on doctrine indeed), and that's what made me wonder and take it more seriously.

If you are an atheist and dismiss Revelation, then fine. But if you are a Catholic, can somebody please tell me why I shouldn't believe John speaks of Rome? Or if that is conceded, then why I should think he only speaks of Imperial Rome despite the evidence in the OP to the contrary? Or why the early Bishops of Rome appear to denouce specific actions of their successors as those of antichrist?

And this thread isn't an unprovoked attack on the Catholic Church. On the contrary, I am concerned at the leading role that the Pope is taking in the ecumenical movement. One thing I do use Mr.Paisley's site for is the more up-to-date stuff (its up-to-date compared to 17th century theologians anyway), and this piece is a good example of where the ecumenical movement leads. Notice how this all isn't a modern fringe view, but instead the historic articles of the Protestant faith are being abandoned right left and centre.

First of all the Pope's no longer the antichrist, then idols appear in churches, then people indulge in the superstition of holy days, then they walk around town waving palm leaves about, then people are attending joint services with Catholics at the chapel. Protestants have conceded this, what ground has Rome given? None. Of course, this is the fault of liberal Protestants themselves, but it's happening nonetheless.

The Pope seems is granted more spiritual authority every century, and Protestants will increasingly look to him for leadership as the churches decline. This isn't my mind looking for conspiracies, Catholics will as readily admit it as anyone else. Orthodox, Anglican, and now even Presbyterians look to Rome. They will soon be one church. This is all real, it's prophecy in fulfilment, right here, right now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why, I haven't argued against what you just stated (although I am highly dubious that papal supremacy was asserted in the 4th Century, maybe you mean primacy?). You say yourself he was head of the Western Church, and I have no problem with that. What I was complaining of is Papal supremacy, whereby the Popacy claims to be the sole manifestation of the church of all the saints on earth. There are no foundations for such a doctrine, it is heretical. I would not take issue with the Bishop of Rome, if he was indeed all that that title suggests. Furthermore, the nature of his headship of the church has changed. The spiritual authority granted to the Popes has been gradually increasingly for the past 1,500 years or so. The early bishops of Rome would never have dreamt of assuming such authority for themselves, and there are a number of quotes to the effect of the one I gave CR above where the past Popes denouce the actions of their successors as those of antichrist. This poses a major problem for the Pope when his position is based on continual apostolic succesion from those same Popes.

I said nothing of Papal Supremacy, merely that Pope Leo Was "head" of the Church and that he was the one who declared Hippo ecumunical. Whether the Pope is an absolute monarch or not is a largely political issue of Church governance and Episcopal Hierarchy. Whether he should be at the head of the College of Bishops is really only disputed by Constantinople, and the Patriarch has several times accepted the principle.

I never denied that all of western Christianity looked to Rome. My point is that you are exaggerating the role of the Papacy in the formation of the canon. Hippo was the conslidation of what was already accepted - the gradual formation of the canon took place by consensus throughout all of Christendom, indeed the greatest single influence came from Athanasius in Alexandria, which Pope Damascus copied a few decades later. There is no reason to attribute the canon as it exists today to Rome.

Hippo was the consolidation of Augustine's Conclusions. The issue has never been debated in Ecumunical Council, and while the Canon is broadly accepted, there remain issues even today; particularly with regard to Old Testement Apocypha. The question of how to use New Testement Apocrypha has never been properly addressed. Augustine became the final authority because he had both Papal and Imperial backing; the only way to enforce something on the regional Churches.[/QUOTE]

Hey Rhyfelwyr,

You forgot to mention that we Roman Catholics eat newborn babies. Beyond serving Moloch, that explains two other things about us:

1) The whole Fish on Friday thing... good for the digestion after 6 days of newborn babies...
2) The whole anti-abortion thing... can't eat 'em with all that saline on 'em.

I know my post is in utter distaste. Much the way I find the majority of yours through this thread.

Hay Don,

I know you're offended, and so am I, but you've come up with some doozies in your time too. You once told me Canterbury sought to supplant Rome.

As I said at the start, all Catholics can feel free to offer an alternative interpretation and tell me why this well established understanding of the scripture should be discarded.

Oft repeated is not the same as well established, the majority of Christins have always rejected the doctrine. An even higher percentage of Christians consider Calvin to be pretty much the worst thing come out of Renaissance Theology.

And this thread isn't an unprovoked attack on the Catholic Church. On the contrary, I am concerned at the leading role that the Pope is taking in the ecumenical movement. One thing I do use Mr.Paisley's site for is the more up-to-date stuff (its up-to-date compared to 17th century theologians anyway), and this piece is a good example of where the ecumenical movement leads. Notice how this all isn't a modern fringe view, but instead the historic articles of the Protestant faith are being abandoned right left and centre.

First of all the Pope's no longer the antichrist, then idols appear in churches, then people indulge in the superstition of holy days, then they walk around town waving palm leaves about, then people are attending joint services with Catholics at the chapel. Protestants have conceded this, what ground has Rome given? None. Of course, this is the fault of liberal Protestants themselves, but it's happening nonetheless.

The Pope seems is granted more spiritual authority every century, and Protestants will increasingly look to him for leadership as the churches decline. This isn't my mind looking for conspiracies, Catholics will as readily admit it as anyone else. Orthodox, Anglican, and now even Presbyterians look to Rome. They will soon be one church. This is all real, it's prophecy in fulfilment, right here, right now.

Well, I suppose if you believe the majority of Christians actually follow the Devil then this would be a problem for you. However, the rest of us would very much like to get on with the businness of putting the Church back together, thank you very much.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I said nothing of Papal Supremacy, merely that Pope Leo Was "head" of the Church and that he was the one who declared Hippo ecumunical. Whether the Pope is an absolute monarch or not is a largely political issue of Church governance and Episcopal Hierarchy. Whether he should be at the head of the College of Bishops is really only disputed by Constantinople, and the Patriarch has several times accepted the principle.

Hippo was the consolidation of Augustine's Conclusions. The issue has never been debated in Ecumunical Council, and while the Canon is broadly accepted, there remain issues even today; particularly with regard to Old Testement Apocypha. The question of how to use New Testement Apocrypha has never been properly addressed. Augustine became the final authority because he had both Papal and Imperial backing; the only way to enforce something on the regional Churches.

The relevance of Papal Supremacy is that it is only once this doctrine is asserted that we can truly say such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church existed, in the sense that it is the sole, catholic/universal church, based in the city of Rome. And while this was an issue of governance within the western church as you said, it is for our purposes here a much more important point. It is only after this (what maybe even you may see as) heretical doctrine was declared that the legitimate position of the Bishop of Rome was usurped by the power that would emerge as the Papacy we know today. The reason why I am saying all this is because you said that in declaring the authority of Hippo, the western church accepted the canon on the grounds of Papal authority. But I would argue there was no Papal authority at this time, since there was no Roman Catholic Church. No claims of supremacy, just the Bishop of Rome.

Oft repeated is not the same as well established, the majority of Christins have always rejected the doctrine. An even higher percentage of Christians consider Calvin to be pretty much the worst thing come out of Renaissance Theology.

The fact that more people believe something doesn't make give it any more weight in an argument. Most 'Christians' today wouldn't even be considered such when taking their own statements of their faith and pitting them against Jesus' own words.

Well, I suppose if you believe the majority of Christians actually follow the Devil then this would be a problem for you. However, the rest of us would very much like to get on with the businness of putting the Church back together, thank you very much.

Heh, I guess when we have threads like this, there are always going to be so many differences underlying our positions that it's hard to understand where the other person is coming from. If you agree with most Catholic practises, you will see the expansion of the RCC as the flourishing of the church on earth. If you disagree, you will see its expansion as the terrifying and unstoppable fulfilment of apocalyptic prophecies.

Remember, despite assertions, often by atheists, that Catholics/Protestants are forever attacking each other over minor points of doctrine, this simply isn't true. In many respects, Catholicism is the polar opposite of the religion I practice. Catholicism is based on ecclesiastical hierarchy, ritualistic worship, a belief in human goodness, free will, mysticism etc. I don't just slightly deviate from these, my beliefs are the total opposite. 0% agreement.

If this wasn't the case, I would have no problem with the ecumenical movement (which for me, is fast becoming what multiculturalism is to Fragony). I go to a Presbyterian church, even though I disagree with a number of its practises which came about as a result of liberal influence. Another Christian I know wonders why I don't just join his own much more fundamentalist Baptist Church. But, I try not to get all righteous and turn away Christian fellowship just because of minor doctrinal differences. Look what Paul put up with with the Corinthians! But with Catholicism as I said it's more than this, it really is the opposite of what I believe. It's the opposite of my conception of what Christ taught and what he was, hence it is antichrist.