Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

I heard this today. I won’t bother with a source, because it isn’t necessary. I’ve heard similar sentiments before and from many places and the quote is only a springboard from which I would like to give my perspective.

Is it not true that Mother Mary is worshiped and revered by many?  Many carry around beads and charms with her name and image on them.  This seems strange to me and dangerous I think.

What frustrates me is that this sort of judgment is often made of Catholics without ever bothering to ask them about it. I wear not one but two images of Mary around my neck. Those images have been given “the look” to the point where I have quietly slipped them under my clothes because it was so very clear that I was making someone uncomfortable with my jewlery choices. Not once though, never, not one single time has anyone ever asked me why I have chosen the jewlery that I have other than to jump to the obviously-clear-conclusion-that-I-am-worshiping-Mary. This is what I wear around my neck:

Purchased from Vatican Gift. I have never had a bad experience with any purchase I have made from them.

(ETA: CAUTION! WARNING! Click on the link to Vatican Gift at your own risk. I have been informed that clicking on that link consitutes a near occasion of sin. You will note however, that I am only telling you this and not removing the link…..you know you want to…..why should I be the only one guarding my wallet….?) 

I wear it because it is a picture of Jesus and Mary and it reminds me of the importance of my vocation as a mother. Of the love between the two of them and how very much I want to love Him and serve Him as she loved and served Him and part of that is being “just” a mother when I would very much like to be winning worldly approval with a high-powered career.

I also wear this:

From James Avery….lovely jewelry!

This an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Again, many people see that image and think. Mary. Poor deluded Catholic she’s got her focus all wrong.

In fact, when I think of Our Lady of Guadalupe I think of not just a picture of Mary. There is considerably more to the image than just that. [Link opens PDF] You see, the image is a sort of gospel tract written just for the Aztec people. A gospel tract that was so effective that 10,000,000 people converted from paganism to Christianity in the ten years following the miracle…and people still convert to Christianity today because of it. Since we are such a people of written words we forget sometimes that most of the world at all times and places has been illiterate. The Aztecs were such a people. The written langauge understood by most of the common people was images and not written words and the image on the tilma of Juan Diego was written to bring them a very specific message. (Although there was plenty in it for the Spanish as well.) The lady in the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is looking down. This is Aztec image-speak to convey the fact that she was not divine because in their iconography Gods faced forward with their eyes wide open. She is standing on a moon which told the Aztecs that she is more powerful than the god of night but being carried by an angel which conveyed that she was royalty along with the color of her garments. The girdle or bow around her waist is a sign of her virginity, but it also has several other meanings. The bow appears as a four-petaled flower. To the native Indians this was the nahui ollin, the flower of the sun, a symbol of plenitude. The cross-shaped flower was also connected with the cross-sticks which produce fire. For them, this was the symbol of fecundity and new life. The high position of the bow and the slight swelling of the abdomen show that the Lady is “with child”. The light that surrounds her is also a sign of the power of God who has sanctified and blessed the one who appears. The rays of the sun would also be recognized by the native people as a symbol of their highest god, Huitzilopochtli. Thus, the lady comes forth hiding but not extinguishing the power of the sun. She is now going to announce the God who is greater than their sun god. The God who is greater than their sun god is the child that she carries even though she is not God and a virgin.

The Aztecs were expecting this sort of knowledge of the True God because God had prepared them. In 1509 the sister of Montezuma fell ill, dropped into and coma and was thought to be dead. Arrangements were being made for her state funeral when she came to in her coffin and began screaming demanding to be let out. When she recovered she told her brother about a strange dream that she had. A creature all of light and marked with a black cross took her to the eastern coast of the empire and told her that men would come from across the water in canoes marked with black crosses and would bring the people knowledge of the True God. The was another prophecy that had circulated for centuries among the Aztecs. The Aztecs marked time in 412 year cycles. The Aztecs believed that every night the sun sturuggled with the powers of darkness in the underworld and rose triumphant each morning. According to their beliefs any night could be the world’s last and it was to help the sun in the nightly struggle that the Aztecs offered human sacrifice for the survival of the world. At the end of one of these 412 year cycles, the mother of the sun god would appear and give definitive birth to the sun god thus ending the need for human sacrifice. The apparition of Mary to Juan Diego occurred at dawn at the end of one of those 412 year cycles. The mother of True God-True Man, Jesus appeared to give them precisely the True Hope that they were expecting but in Truth and not in a continuation of their pagan beliefs.

I won’t even go into the other miraculous aspects of this image from the fact that you can’t paint such a sophisticated image on cloth made from cactus fiber….not hard to do. Can’t. Nobody in the last 500 years has done it. Or that fabric of this type disintegrates withing 50 years if it is really well cared for and St. Juan Diego’s tilma has lasted for 500 years and for most of that time did not reside in the protective case it now does. Or that the image maintains body temperature no matter what the surrounding temperature. Or that there are no brushstrokes to indicate that the image was painted at all. Or that miraculously survived a bomb blast.

What is breathtaking here is 10,000,000 million brought to Christ in ten years. A miracle so stunnning that we should be shouting it from the rooftops and frankly the only reason I think it isn’t, is because so many people think that all of those Aztecs converted from one form of paganism to another because Catholics aren’t really Christians. A whole people rescued from the terror of human sacrifice and the horror of going to sleep every night wondering if this night the sun would lose the struggle. I think of the HOPE and the LIFE that the Child of this woman brought to those people and to me. Because you see, Jesus is there in that image. She’s pregnant with Him. She OBEYED even though she knew it would cost her her reputation, her standing in the community, and maybe even her life she said “Let it be done to me according to thy word.” Her yes to God mattered. My yes to God matters.

This medal also says that I am Catholic. Something I am proud of having spent more of my life as a vitriolic anti-Catholic than Catholic. This medal was given to me by my best friend and for that reason I wear it too.

It’s not a charm. It’s not Mary-worship. I wear it for a lot of reasons but they all have to do with Jesus….except for the part about my best friend giving it to me. I like my best friend a lot but I don’t worship her either.

Some Protestants continue to allege that Catholics worship images despite their constant denial. I happen to be one of those Protestants.

And I sighed and ran for the bucket of water.  The first thing that really bothers me is that this really should not be an issue for Protestants seeking to evangelize Catholics. As a Catholic I find this whole you-worship-statues thing to be seriously irritating because it suggests that I am incapable of defining what I worship and what I don’t. I promise you that I am not shy about saying what I believe in and if I was worshiping a statue, I would loudly and proudly proclaim it. I am occasionally absent-minded. If you read this blog at all, you know I am the typo queen and proofreading is not my strong suit, but I am not a blithering idiot. I know what I worship and it isn’t statues!! Or images! Or Mary for that matter. Here’s a hint to all of you Protestants who want to see me leave the Roman Catholic Church. You would be so much more effective if you worked at changing my mind about something that we AGREE that I am doing, rather than wasting your time convincing me that I am doing something that I am not and telling me to stop doing that thing I am not doing to begin with. (If you have a glass of wine, that last sentence will make sense.) If you want to get me to leave the Roman Catholic Church, stop picking at the edges of what I believe in and YANK THE RUG out from under me and you can start by focusing on the things that I freely admit doing.

And as hideously offensive as sites like this are, at least they get it! Let’s take the trivial stuff off of the table. I believe that in the Eucharist there is no longer bread and wine but Jesus present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. I WORSHIP Jesus in the Eucharist. When I am alone in the Adoration chapel, I remove my shoes (holy ground), I cover myself, and I prostrate myself on the ground and worship my Lord. If I am guilty of idolatry, it is THERE and not over some picture. I know that if the Roman Catholic Church is wrong about the Real Presence I am guilty of the worst idolatry and anything I have done in relationship to a statue or a picture will pale in comparision. If I am going to hell for idolatry it will be because I believe Jesus, my Lord, my Sin Sacrifice, my Shepherd is truly present in the Eucharist and worship Him there and the Roman Catholic Church was wrong about that.
 
That brings me to my next point. I have long suspected that Protestants accuse Catholics of worshipping all sorts of things that they don’t, because they [the Protestants] have not been exposed to worship as Jesus intended. So much is worship in a Protestant church if it happens on Sunday morning. (And I say this as a former Protestant.) Lead the congregation in singing songs that make us feel good about Jesus…worship led by the “Worship Team.” Pray….worship. A pastor-led bible study….worship. It’s no wonder that they look at a Catholic and say to themselves “If I did that, it would be worship; therefore, they are worshiping [that statue, Mary, that picture, etc.]” Since when should we get to define what worship is? Cain had his own ideas….got thumped. Aaron had some ideas….got thumped…along with everyone who agreed with him. Nadab and Abihu had their own ideas and got blasted!! Samuel lost his right to the kingship of Israel because he decided it didn’t really matter enough to do it God’s way and after all he had a really important reason like Samuel was selling indulgences and didn’t show up in time! (Oh wait, I am mixing up my stories it was other people who decided that they had the right to re-define worship because they didn’t like how quickly God’s appointed representatives were cleaning up a problem.) When I look in the Old Testament I see very clearly that worship involves sacrifice and offerings and it’s more about sacrifice than offering and in the New Testament, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament Passover meal (which had a sacrifice) and the Old Testament sacrificial system in Himself and decreed a new form of worship for the New Covenant. (Jesus in the Catholic Mass has a slightly more expanded version of that). Jesus said at the Last Supper, on the night He was to give himself freely to the executioners as our eternal sin sacrifice, “Do this in memory of me.” There it is. That’s how we are to worship Him….if you are not remembering Him in your worship as He decreed, if you are not eating from the Fruit of the Tree of Life (Jesus on the Cross); then, you don’t have enough Jesus. Just as the Jews presented sin sacrifices in worship that prefigured the ONE Perfect Sin Sacrifice, Catholics enter into the eternally present worship in Heaven and re-present (not re-sacrifice) the ONE Perfect Sin Sacrifice. Yes I know that sacrifice happened only once, but we who are still stuck in these sinful bodies and trapped in time with these puny little brains and finite ability to understand need to remind ourselves of the price and feed our souls periodically. Kind of like having sex once was enough to seal the marriage covenant but renewing the covenant is a good idea for healthy marriage. I believe that the reason Protestants consistently accuse Catholics of worshipping things other than Jesus is because they don’t worship Jesus enough. They have been confused with counterfeit forms of worship and are not properly anchored in Jesus. I know that statement will send more than a few readers for their own buckets, but what would you have me to say? That I receive Jesus, physically, actually, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity and that it doesn’t really make a difference? (Why Holy Communion is not symbolic).

Ok those are my thoughts, now I would like to briefly address Dr. Mizzi’s main point in the post I linked about and his “logical conclusion.” Dr. Mizzi fairly states the Catholic postion and quotes from paragraph 2132 of the CCC:

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honour paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

And then says well if you venerate images of saints then you must be worshipping images of God because that is that is the “logical conclusion”….he says it with more words than that but that’s the general gist. What he is missing is this. The veneration directed toward the image of a Saint is not to the image but the Saint. Just as I might kiss the picture of my husband as I call my husband to my memory (if I was a picture-kisser and I am not) I don’t confuse the picture with my husband and my husband is not going to come home and accuse me of being unfaithful. It is NOT different with an image of Jesus. The image of Jesus might call to mind Jesus Himself and might call me to fruitful prayer and meditation on Jesus….not the image…..as I detailed in this post here. (Statues, Closets and the Council of Carthage) Really and truly. I am not making that up.

How is the second commandment different from the first?
The first commandment (You shall have no other gods before Me) forbids the worship of false gods, whereas the second forbids the false worship of God. The first tells us whom to worship; the second tells us how to worship him.

What is required in the second commandment?
The commandment forbids us to make and worship images of God. We are called to know God as he revealed himself, and to serve him according to his ordinances, not in any other way devised by human wisdom. “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

Does the second commandment prohibit the making or use of all images?
The second commandment does not prohibit paintings and sculptures which are not intended to be used in the worship of God. This is clear from the words “you shall not bow down to them nor serve them”. Moreover, shortly afterwards giving the Ten Commandments, God instructed Israel to make two cherubims of gold for the Ark of the Covenant, and later on, a bronze serpent (Exodus 25:28; Numbers 21:9). Solomon decorated the temple with twelve oxen, and its walls with carved images of cherubims (1 Kings 7:25; 6:29). In all these instances, the Israelites were not called to “bow down” or “serve” the images. When the Israelites began to burn incense to the bronze serpent, the godly king Hezekiah broke it to pieces.

EXACTLY!! The OT clearly records images being used not as objects of worship but as aids to worship. And guess what? This is EXACTLY what the Catechism sets forth as official Catholic teaching. “2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.^“

Can we make an image of God?
We should not make any image of God. When God made a covenant with Israel, the Lord spoke to the people, and they heard the sound of his voice, but they did not see any form. God did so on purpose. “Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female…” (Deuteronomy 4:15, 16). Elsewhere the Scripture reproves us, “To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him?” (Isaiah 40:18).

Can we make an image of Christ since he was made flesh?
No, not least because we do not know how he looked like. The hundreds of different pictures of Jesus testify against each other that they are false images. What is called a picture or a statue of Christ is not his true likeness. Like the idols of old, the modern portrayal of the Lord is “a teacher of lies” (Habakkuk 2:18). Moreover, Jesus is the true God, and therefore the only appropriate response to seeing his image is worship and adoration. Sadly, the “Jesus” imprinted on the mind by artistic creations is “another Jesus” – an idol. False images lead to false worship.

Sorry but this idea is completely mistaken, since we are never to worship the image itself. Ever. Ever Ever. First, on what basis is the claim made that the “only appropriate response to seeing an image of Jesus is worship and adoration”? Is that a scriptural command? Citation please? By what authority are we told that this this is the “only appropriate response”? That’s like saying the only appropriate response to seeing a picture of my husband is to kiss it and treat it as if it was really him, since that is what I would do to him in person. I assure you one and all, that I can tell the difference between a picture of my husband and the real thing. I also understand the difference between kissing a picture of my husband because I am thinking of the real thing and what really happens between the two of us when we are truly together. Next, how does an image that may not portray an exact likeness of Jesus, lead to false worship? The pupose of the image is to call to mind what is portrayed by the image. Kind of like the way people who write about matters of faith use words to call to mind things of the Divine. That’s what the writers of Sacred Scripture did with their words even before these words were singled out as scripture. Is it wrong to call to mind the things of God by speaking of Him, by meditating on Him, by teaching of Him? That’s what words do you know. Is calling Jesus to mind because I have read about Him in Sacred Scripture, or read about Him in the words of a faithful teacher of the Gospel, or lifted my voice in song about Him essentially different than calling Jesus to mind because a statue was the impetus for the thought? A picture or a statue or other image is simply a different form of communication and is fraught with the same sort of peril as written communication. It can be uplifting. It can be false. It can be deceiving or instructive. We must prayerfully discern an appropriate response to everything that is communicated to us whether the message is communicated with words or images! We must examine not only what is present, but what is not and by what authority the message is given.

False image indeed…..

Did God give us an image of himself?
God has revealed himself in his Son; “He is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). Christ is the perfect icon of God. But then, how can we know Christ in truth? The Lord himself answers, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). We know Christ in Scripture, not in the imaginations of sculptors. During our pilgrimage on earth, we are called to live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The apostle Peter reminds us that we believe and rejoice in him even though “now you do not see him”(1 Peter 1:8). Yet we have a living hope. Eagerly we await that glorious day when “we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Then our joy will be complete.

And for those who are illiterate (and that would be MOST of the Christians who lived in the last 2,000 years)? Or those in the last 2000 years of Christianity who couldn’t afford books? Movable type has only been around for the last 500 years or so, that leaves 1500 years of outrageously expensive books. How about the presently illiterate Christians or those who do not have a Bible? How about the dyslexic? Or the blind before braille and books on tape? Does the prohibition against images of Jesus extend to painted pictures in a preschooler’s collection of Bible stories? (And if not, why not? Wouldn’t they be the most susceptible to “false images”?) And do “you” really manage to read the Bible without forming a mental image of the people it portrays? Like sculptors have a lock on imagining such things? My children tell me ALL the time you know that a character in a movie did (or didn’t) look like I imagine him/her when they were reading the book. Is sculpting an imagined image somehow worse then imagining it in the first place? We are called to live by faith and not my sight, but I don’t see even the slighest suggestion in the context of Sacred Scripture that this verse was to be applied to images of Jesus. Unless, you are equating an image of Jesus with the reality? I honestly don’t know anyone Protestant or Catholic over the age of two that thinks a painting, icon, statute or other image of Jesus is the reality. We are STILL walking by faith because we do not see Jesus as the Apostles did or as Thomas did and they did not see Him as He is in Eternity. We do not see heaven and the place Our Lord is preparing for us. We imagine such things but I don’t know anyone who thinks that they can come close to the reality in ANY form. I am left to wonder if “you” Mr. Mizzi, think that Catholics DO think that they are beholding a reality and you do not, which leads me to wonder why you have such a poor opinion of the mental capacities of Catholics? Or do you think that such images portray a reality and you personally are afraid you will be confused by it and you think Catholics suffer the same difficulties with reality and the imaginary images that you do?

Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God. He was fully human and we can portray Him so. Iconoclasm was condemned as heresy in the seventh ecumenical council of Nicea:

“We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, … which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands.”

Of course, Mr. Mizzi you are free to believe that those scriptures you quoted above really do apply to images but I have to wonder why it is that your interpretation should be considered authoritative when the near unanimity of Christian opinion in all times and places disagrees with you? Did the Christian men who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they could infallibly determine what was and was not Sacred Scripture at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo believe that those verse were to be interpreted that way? Did the men who taught them? What was the practice of the early church before the canon of the NT was established?

Why should we obey the second commandment?
God threatens severe punishments on those who disobey and promises great blessings on the obedient. If we love God, let us worship him as he has commanded. If however we attempt to worship him by graven images, contrary to his commandment, we are found to be haters of God and worthy of his wrath.

Copyright Dr Joseph Mizzi
www.justforcatholics.org
Used by permission

Yes God does threaten severe punishments to those who disobey. Actually, it is those of us who do not embrace sola fide that have the theology to match the above statement and believe that Our Lord meant it when He said in Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” You can’t separate good works and faith.

Jesus said to His Apostles that those who listened to them (and their successors) listened to Him. We should all be listening to what the men who set the canon of the NT believed those same scriptures to mean, and just for starters they were most assuredly not iconoclasts.

The following appeared on Keeping The Home on April 7, 2008. The author of Keeping the Home does not allow rebuttals in her comments section as is her right. It’s her blog after all. Nevertheless, I would like to provide a Catholic perspective (although certainly not authoritative) to her remarks. I have also discovered that sometimes her posts do not stay posted forever so I am copying and pasting most of her post for future reference and context for my perspective.

This post was written with love. Those who have ears to hear (or in this case, eyes to see) will notice I am not attacking anyone or anything. I’m just writing out some observations. If you consider what I’ve written to be “hateful,” consider that it’s because you hate it.

Those of us with eyes to see, can also observe a noted lack of determination to seek out alternative interpretations. To what extent does the scriptural admonishment to not bear false witness, impose upon us a desire to see the best in each other? If we hear someone accused of something terrible, should we not seek to see if they are in fact, guilty? Should we not at least attempt to seek out exculpatory information? I don’t know the answer to that. Just asking a question and “writing out some observations.”

I recently finished reading the Bible again. Every time through, I’m just shocked when I read Revelation chapter 17. Who/what could that chapter be discussing?

The Whore of Babylon sits over a city. That city sits atop 7 hills, and is under a strong religious influence. There is only one city that fits this description, and that is Rome.

Really? Is that all about the location of this city that is included in Revelation 17? First, I see no mention of a “strong religious influence” but I am perfectly willing to spot Keeping the Home on that. Perhaps there is some phrase or something in Revelation 17 that I missed that implies a ”strong religious influence.” If Rome is the city of the Whore of Babylon, then how does Revelation 17:1 that says the prostitute “sits on many waters” fit the city of Rome? I have never heard Rome described as a city of many waters. Additionally, the hills described in verse 9, we are told in verse 10 are not hills but kings! And five of them have fallen? If this is so clearly about the city of Rome, then in what way does the seven kings come into play and the idea that five of them have fallen? What is a Catholic interpretation of this passage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping the Home continues….

We also read of the Whore (the religious system) being drunk on the blood of saints (the Bible tells us that another word for Christian is saint). Certainly many Christians have been killed from Muslims, but more so from the Roman Catholic Church. For example, Pope Innocent killed 70,000 Christians in one day, - that is more than all of the Caesars of Rome put together.

During the Inquisition and burnings, Christians were killed because they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. This is not Christian or Christ like. Christ said that after you’ve told someone the Gospel message, if they don’t accept it, you are to just shake the dust off of your feet and move on. To see an example of historical religious killings, by Roman Catholics killing Christians, watch the movie Elizabeth (the first one is the best).

There is no question about it, killing in the name of religion is abhorrent. Despite grossly inflated numbers to the contrary, academic scholarship suggests that the Inquisition killed about 12 people a year. 12 people per year too many in my opinion. However, I do think it is important to note that killing in the name of religion was prevalent in society at large around the time of the Reformation and this behavior was not confined to Catholics (just click on my sidebar for examples of Protestant toleration in England). It should be noted that the pilgrims who came to the what would become the United States were not fleeing Catholic persecution, it was PROTESTANT persecution that drove them from the Old World. (Note: Pope Innocent killed 70,000 Christians in one day? Source please?) Keeping the Home continues…..

Also, why the name “Whore of Babylon?” The historical city of Babylon does not sit atop seven hills, so that is obviously not what Revelation 17 is talking about. The key is in the terms “Mystery Babylon,” and “WHORE of Babylon.”

First off, a spiritual whore is one who has forsaken God for false gods. A devious spiritual whore will try to look like she is true to her spiritual husband (God), while trying to hide that she’s playing the whore with other religions.

Now - MYSTERY Babylon…

There are ancient Mystery Babylon cults. These cults tend to have the below in common:

1. They worship a mother and child. For example: Isis and Horus.

2. They will mix in other pagan practices, and refine their mystery religion into a melting pot of sorts.

3. Many teachings of such a cult are esoteric. You’ll only be told a little here, and a little there, until you are far enough in the religion to learn more.

Roman Catholics themselves admit in many of their revered writings that their church has purposely mixed in some pagan practices with their religion, in order to “help the pagans more easily convert to Catholicism.”

Is this why the pope wears a Dagon fish hat? [RNW's note: I have deleted the Dagon fish hat images. If you want,  you can Google for them, they are easy to find.]

Note the mitre on the head of this drawing of the goddess Cybele and the striking similarity to the fish head of Dagon. Cybele was worshipped in Rome and was also called the “Magna Mater”, or the great queen mother goddess, which evolved into Catholic Mariology. The priesthood of Cybele was composed of castrated males, which parallels the celibate priesthood of Catholicism. The basilica of Saint Peter’s, according to some, stands upon the former site of Cybele’s main temple in Rome. The ruins of another temple to Cybele / Magna Mater can still be seen today in Rome on Palatine hill. - Quoted from Dagon, Cybele, and Catholicism

Well many of her accusations are so very general in nature that it would take a book to go look up the specifics on the anti-catholic websites out there and refute them one by one. But I just LOVE Dagon the Fish God and he’ll do for a specific example of a typical accusation made against the Catholic Church and the reality of a reasonable look at the evidence. Take the Long Way Home, took the time to look into the Dagon the Fish God parallels. Please take the time to read all of her post, I will quote her conclusion below:

Sooooo. Essentially, what I learned was, nobody (at least nobody in the historical world) knows much about Dagon. Historians can’t even decide what he was the god of, much less how he was depicted. Depending on which city you lived in, you probably worshiped him differently. His religion died out in the BC years for the most part, although it’s possible there were a few hangers on as late as 402 AD. But the mitre doesn’t appear until the mid 10^th century. And then there’s the problem that the mitre itself has gone through many stages, most of which don’t look anything like the representation that the anti Catholics claim to be identical to the fish head of Dagon’s priests. And then there is the fact that an entire sect of Catholicism (the Eastern Rite Catholics) don’t wear the Western style mitre to this day. So to believe what the anti Catholics have to say you have to believe that Western Christians resurrected a long dead religion (one that they themselves helped to stamp out the last vestiges of) sometime in the 15^th century (that’s when the mitre most closely resembles the one today). This would be after the Protestant Reformation, by the way. Who would believe this???

Let’s also examine the celibacy “dig” shall we? [I put it in bold up above.] First, Roman Catholic priests do not physically castrate themselves. They voluntarily choose to sacrifice that aspect of their lives for the kingdom. It has scriptural foundation in Matthew 19:12 “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Unlike the priests of Dagon, who supposedly were castrated by men, Catholic priests follow the words of Our Lord himself and renounce marriage for the kingdom of heaven. We see this reinforced in Revelation 14:4 where we see those who have consecrated their virginity to the Lamb pictured in the worship of heaven. Keeping the Home continues….

Moving on… We know that whatever this false religious system is, it must be a type of counterfeit of true Christianity, else, there’d be no reason for the Bible to say the following:

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. -Revelation 18:4

Therefore, there are some truly saved Christians within this Whore of Babylon religion. How could there be any real Christians within a pagan religion? It can only work, if those Christians think that that pagan religious system is actually a Christian one.

Is the Roman Catholic Religion a Christian one? Let’s find out right now… CHRISTian, means to be Christ-like,- or to follow Christ’s teachings. Jesus Himself said:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. -John 14:6

Therefore, a real Christian knows that they can get to heaven ONLY via Jesus, and no other way. Christians believe and know this. Does the Roman Catholic religion agree with this biblical Christian doctrine, taught by Jesus?

The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism — making him/her justified before God.1 This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works, which are in turn rewarded with the joy of heaven: “We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1821). “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification,” (CCC, par. 2010). - quoted from Are Roman Catholics Christian?

You want to know one of my pet peeves? It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to know, this is my blog and I am going to tell you. One of my biggest pet peeves is quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) out of context. It isn’t hard to discover what the CCC says. It’s on-line and free for anyone to read. You can read it on the Vatican website and there is a searchable copy here. I encourage everyone who wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches to READ it AND the footnotes. So what is paragraph 1821 all about anyway? I’ll give you a hint…it’s not about salvation. It comes from the section of the CCC that deals with Theological Virtues. Theological virtues (faith, hope, and love) are virtues that men have NONE of without God. They are gifts from God. Paragraph 1821 read IN FULL as follows and I will include the text of the footnoted scriptures:

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.⁹² In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end”⁹³ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.”⁹⁴ She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.⁹⁵

92 Romans 8:28-30 “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified.”

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

93 Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.

Council of Trent: DS 1541 So also as regards the gift of perseverance [can. 16] of which it is written: He that “shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” [Matt. 10:22; 24:13] (which gift cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him, “who is able to make him, who stands, stand” [Rom. 14:4], that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him, who falls), let no one promise himself anything as certain with absolute certitude, although all ought to place and repose a very firm hope in God’s help. For God, unless men be wanting in His grace, as He has begun a good work, so will He perfect it, “working to will and to accomplish” [Phil. 2:13; can. 22]. * Nevertheless, let those “who think themselves to stand, take heed lest they fall” [1 Cor. 10:12], and “with fear and trembling work out their salvation” [Phil. 2:12] in labors, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayers and oblations, in fastings and chastity [cf. 2 Cor. 6:3 ff.]. For they ought to fear, knowing that they are born again “unto the hope of glory” [cf. 1 Rom. Pet. 1:3], and not as yet unto glory in the combat that yet remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil, in which they cannot be victors, unless with God’s grace they obey the Apostle saying: “We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die. But if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live” [Rom. 8:12 ff.].

94 1 Timothy 2:4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

95 St. Teresa of Avila

Now call me crazy but I don’t see any idea in paragraph 1821 that doesn’t come straight from Sacred Scripture. Yes, there are footnotes to the Council of Trent (also practically straight from Sacred Scripture) and St. Teresa of Avila but the main ideas expressed are those straight from Sacred Scripture. You see Catholics believe that Sacred Scripture is a unity and that ALL of it is true. If Jesus said that we must “endure to the end” then Catholics believe that. We must remain true to our belief in Jesus and ACT on that belief.
 

Well then. Is paragraph 2010 about salvation? Well it’s closer to a discussion about salvation than theological virtues. It’s in a section of the CCC which is about Grace and Justification and in my opinion NOTHING in the section about merit (where paragraph 2010 resides) is complete without also noting paragraph 2007 which says “With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.“ Let’s be very clear here. The Catholic Church teaches that we have received EVERYTHING from God. We have NO merit on our own. Any merit that we have is solely because we have allowed God to work in us. There is NO earning Salvation in the Catholic Church. Period. Let’s look at ALL of paragraph 2010 now and add 2011 because it talks about what the Catholic Church teaches about the source of Grace:

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
 

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.⁶³

Hmmm. The Catholic Church teaches that God is the source of all sanctifying grace and that if we have ANY merit before God then, Jesus is the source of that merit. What the Catholic Church teaches is not that we can earn our salvation but rather that we must allow God to work through us. She teaches that if we do not allow God to work through us, our faith is like the faith of demons and has not changed us. (See all of the book of James) Does that sound at ALL like the point that was being made in Are Roman Catholics Christians?

Jesus says that we are saved through Him only, but the Roman Catholic Church says that there are works/deeds that must be done as well. The Bible disagrees:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9

That is established. We are not saved by works. Jesus said in John 14:6 that we are saved through HIM only.

Over and over I hear Ephesians 2:8-9 quoted to me as if the thought stopped right there. In fact, verse 9 does not complete the paragraph. Verse 10 does. And although I memorized Ephesian 2:8-9 as a Protestant and quoted it to my share of Catholics in my day. My children have memorized a little bit more….because more Sacred Scripture is always better than less don’t you know?. Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.”

The Catholic Church teaches ALL of Ephesians. That we are saved by the work of Christ, and then He works through us. We have no merit. But we better darn well do something with the Grace that Christ gives us or we become like the Dead Sea, with living water flowing in but dead because nothing flows out. Keeping the Home continues….

How does it work? Jesus again tells us, in His own Words:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. -John 3:14-18

We are saved by accepting Jesus’ death on the cross to pay the price for OUR sins. Jesus paid for our sins, so that we are washed clean through His perfect, spilt blood. If one accepts this free gift, then they are saved:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. -Romans 10:9-11

Confessing Jesus is politically incorrect, and so is speaking the truth.

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. -Luke 9:26

Guess what? The Catholic Church teaches ALL of that but you are right that it rejects sola fide. It rejects sola fide because it isn’t what Jesus taught and it isn’t scriptural.  Scripture is very clear that salvation is about faithful obedience. (And if what follows seems very familiar…that is because a lot of it is from my previous post here) It is still unmerited. It is still unearned. It is offered freely by Our Lord even though there is nothing we can ever do to deserve it or earn it. It still requires obedience. Whether you “believe” it does or not.  Can ‘faith alone’ be a reasonable response to our Lord? Must we not even love Him? Why then, isn’t faith the greatest of all spiritual virtues? (1 Corinthians 13: 13 says the greatest virtue is love.) First let’s look at the words of Our Lord Himself in the gospels.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Matthew 19:16-17 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”

Yes. Jesus also said in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” but we can’t pick and choose which parts of Jesus’ words we are going to believe. Jesus spoke the Truth not contradiction and that means (according to his words) both believing AND doing are necessary. If believing is all that is necessary to accept God’s gift of Salvation why are the examples of faith that are held up to us in the New Testament always really examples of faithful obedience and not ‘faith alone’? In Hebrews chapter 11 some of the great examples of Old Testament faith are enumerated. Go read the chapter; I’ll wait. There sure are an awful lot of ’saved by faith’s BECAUSE they did something’s’ in there. Can you split apart the faith and obedience in those examples? Does God? Were they REALLY saved by “faith alone”? Let’s pick two. Noah and Abraham. Remember these are the examples that the Holy Spirit inspired author is using to teach us about salvation in the New Covenant. Just because these show up in the Old Testament does not mean that they are irrelevant.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, warned about what was not yet seen, with reverence built an ark for the salvation of his household. Through this he condemned the world and inherited the righteousness that comes through faith.

Would Noah have been saved if He had only believed God would save him? What if he hadn’t built the ark? Did building the ark, “earn” his salvation? Or was it the means by which God exercised His Grace in Noah’s life? Was Noah’s salvation a free gift?…darn tootin’ it was. God didn’t have to give him that grace. Noah didn’t earn it. He received it through faithful obedience. Now how about Abraham?

Hebrews 11:8-12 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the promised land as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the same promise; for he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and maker is God. By faith he received power to generate, even though he was past the normal age–and Sarah herself was sterile–for he thought that the one who had made the promise was trustworthy. So it was that there came forth from one man, himself as good as dead, descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sands on the seashore.

Would Abraham have received his blessing? His inheritence? If he had not obeyed? This is what the messenger of God had to say to him:

Genesis 22:12 (this is the Angel from the Lord speaking)…Do not do the least thing to him. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son.”….

Faith or obedience? Or faith and obedience?

Genesis 22:16b-17a I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly

Abraham is held up as an examples of saving faith and the the Lord declares to him “Because you acted as you did” Did Abraham earn anything? Or were his actions the means by which God’s Grace worked in his life and through Abraham to all of us? The Lord reiterates this in a message to Isaac:

Genesis 26:4-5 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and give them all these lands, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing–this because Abraham obeyed me, keeping my mandate (my commandments, my ordinances, and my instructions).”

Because Abraham believed? No. Because Abraham obeyed. He wouldn’t have obeyed without belief but would his belief have meant anything without obedience? To separate faith and obedience is a false dichotomy. This is confirmed in James 2 which is the only place in the Bible where the words ‘faith’ and ’alone’ occur together and it isn’t to talk about live-giving faith but dead faith.

James 2:17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Sacred Scripture tells us that ‘faith alone’ is ‘dead faith.’ Any time someone says by “‘faith alone’ you are saved,” try substituting what Sacred Scripture says about ‘faith alone’ and see if it makes sense. (For by grace are you saved through “dead faith”….) Better still try Martin Luther’s “translation” of Romans 3:28 with commentary from James 2:17 in [ ]  ”Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone [dead faith], apart from the deeds of the law.” Back to that passage you quoted earlier…Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.” EXACTLY my point. I am glad you brought that up. Faith is never ever set up in opposition to obedience in Sacred Scripture. The cautions we see in Sacred Scripture have everything to do about acting like we deserve God’s Grace because of who we are or what we do. We aren’t supposed to BOAST. Noah obeyed. Abraham obeyed. Enoch obeyed. Rahab obeyed. Did any of them boast? Did any of them hold themselves up as a great example and start telling God what He should and shouldn’t do? Did any of them parade around telling others how great they were and how sinful the surrounding peons were? Anyone want to compare them to the Pharisees with the uncircumcised hearts? In fact, Ephesians 2:8-9 is an incomplete thought. Here is the whole thought:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.

When you complete the thought expressed in Ephesians 2:8-9 with verse 10. Suddenly we are right back to what I told the potential convert at the beginning of this post. Salvation is about living a life of faithful obedience to Our Lord. The Roman Catholic Church teaches the fullness of salvation as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture (hat tip to Karl Keating) 

I am a devout Catholic and I believe all of these things listed below from Sacred Scripture are part of receiving the salvation made available to me by Jesus Christ. Those who claim that faith alone is what saves you must ignore the rest of what is recorded in Sacred Scripture.

By Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5; Mark 16:16)

By the work of the Spirit (John 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By Works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25)

By Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

There is only one place in Sacred Scripture where the term “Faith alone” occurs and that is in James 2:24 “See how a person is justified by works and NOT faith alone.”

[Here I need my patient reader to image that this paragraph is flush <------that way. I have tried a gazillion times to format it that way and Blog.com keeps not doing it. I've wasted enough time and an arrow will just have to suffice.]  This is long enough and I will let Keeping the Home have the last word. I would only suggest that if what I have written above has suggested to you that perhaps those who claim with certainty that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon have either done their homework and are bearing false witness or have not done their homework and there is more to the story than is being presented….then may I suggest this link for follow up if you would like to hear more of what the Catholic Church says in response to this sort of “scholarship”? Keeping the Home continues below.

Coming back to my point… This is another reason why Roman Catholicism sounds like it’s the Whore of Babylon. What other religion out there is VERY big, has a foothold in most nations, proclaims itself to be Christian, yet teaches doctrines at enmity with the Bible, and has real Christians within it, that need to “come out of her?” I only know of one religion that fits the bill, and that is Roman Catholicism.

Let’s see what others have to say about the Whore of Babylon:

This description of Babylon the Great Harlot, Seated on the Seven-Headed Ten-Horned Beast, while it may have ultimate reference to a situation yet to appear, Exactly fits Papal Rome. Nothing else in World History does fit. The desire for Worldly Power began to manifest itself in the Church, on a broad scale, in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire ceased its Persecutions, and made Christianity its State religion. The spirit of Imperial Rome passed into the Church. The Church gradually developed itself into the pattern of the Empire it had conquered. Rome fell. But Rome came to life again, as a World-Power, in the Name of the Church. The Popes of Rome were the heirs and successors of the Caesars of Rome. The vatican is where the Palace of the Caesars was. The Popes have claimed all the authority the Caesars claimed, and more. The Papal Palace, throughout the centuries, has been among the most luxurious in all the world. Popes have lived in Pomp and Splendor unsurpassed by earthly kings. In no place on earth is there more ostentatious pageantry and show of magnificence than the coronation of a Pope. The City of Rome, first Pagan, then Papal, has been the Dominating Power of the World for Two Thousand Years, 200 B.C. to A.D. 1800. “Full of names of Blasphemy: (17:3). Popes claim to hold on earth the place of God, to have Supreme authority over the Human Conscience, to Forgive Sin, to grant Indulgences, and that Obedience to Them is necessary to Salvation. How could anything be more Blasphemous? “Scarlet” (17:3,4), color of the Beast and the Harlot, and also of the Dragon (12:3), is the Color of the Papacy. The Papal Throne is Scarlet. It is borne by twelve men clad in Scarlet. The Cardinals’ hats and robes are Scarlet. Originally the Devil’s color (12:3), it has now become the Color of Atheistic Communism: they are commonly spoken as of Reds, Red Army, Red Territory, the Red Square in Moscow, the Devil again marshalling his hosts from Without. “Filthiness of her Fornication” (17:4). Appalling Immoralities of Popes of the Middle Ages are well known. “Drunk with the Blood of Martyrs” (17:6). The Horrors of the Inquisition, ordered and maintained by the Popes, over a period of 500 years, in which unnumbered millions were Tortured and Burned, constitute the MOST BRUTAL, BEASTLY and DEVELISH PICTURE in all history. It is not pleasant to write these things. It is inconceivable that any Ecclesiastical Organization, in its mania for Power, could have distorted and desecrated and corrupted, for its own exaltation, the beautiful and holy religion of Jesus, as the Papacy has done. But Facts are Facts. And History is History. And, most amazing of all, it seems exactly pre-figured in Revelation. No wonder John’s vision made him sick at heart (10:10). -Quoted from Halley’s Bible Handbook

17:4-6. The elegant clothing and jewelry of the Woman show her wealth and attractiveness, but her activities are filthy and abominable to God. Her mystery name is BABYLON THE GREAT. Ancient Babylon is a type or prefigurement of this future Babylon. The harlot will do what literal Babylon did in the past: (1) oppress God’s people, and (2) propagate a false religious system. Much of the world’s idolatry can be traced back to historical Babylon (cf. Gen. 11:1-9), including the mother-child cult of Semiranis-Tammus (cd. Jer. 44:16-19; Ezek. 8:9,14), which entered other cultures as Ashtaroth-Baal, Aphrodite-Eros, Venus-Cupid, and even Madonna-Child. As the fountainhead of idolatry, Babylon the harlot is MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABINATIONS OF THE EARTH. The harlot has killed many of God’s saints and Christian martyrs throughout the ages, and will do so again during the Tribulation period. 17:9. The seven heads of the Beast represent seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. The city of Rome was known throughout the ancient world as a city built on seven hills or mountains. John notes that the wise mind will make the proper identification. The woman apparently represents idolatrous, anti-God civilization, centered at Rome but with worldwide influence (cf. v. 15). The identification of the seven heads as Rome shows that the Beast will have his major base of operations at Rome also… -Quoted from the notes in The King James Study Bible

(18:2) Babylon, “confusion,” is repeatedly used by the prophets in a symbolic sense. Two “Babylons” are to be distinguished in the Revelation: ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political Babylon, which is the Beast’s confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is “the great whore…” - Quoted from the notes in The Old Scofield Study Bible

I could quote and cite many more sources, if time would allow. Read also the notes on Revelation chapter 17 in the Geneva Bible. Fascinating stuff. [End of Keeping the Home’s remarks}

It’s been a crazy week around here. I feel like sometime on Monday the rocket sled I didn’t know I was standing on took off at warp speed and I have been hanging off the back trying to climb back on ever since. The big topic of the week on that homeschooling forum was Mary…again…and it ended up in a “discussion” about how Catholics were clearly in violation of scripture if they knelt and prayed with a statue in sight. It was such a productive conversation. “Do too.” “Do NOT!” You DO SO!!”….etc. I have suggested repeatedly that those who wish to see me leave the Catholic Church would make more headway if they didn’t waste their time trying to convince me that I am really doing something that I adamantly hold that I am not doing rather than just  starting with an area that I of acknowledged disagreement. Anyway…as the conversation was winding to a close I put up a summary of what I believe with respect to the bowing down to statues issue and it seemed like it fit here. Perhaps it will make up for the paucity of blogging for the rest of the week.

First let me start by sharing my personal experience. Today is Ash Wednesday (but who knows when I will finish this and post it) and because of a commitment that I made to my pastor, I had to be present (before and after) at all of the services where ashes where distributed and for the two Masses. My home is not terribly close to our church and at some times of the day it can take 30 minutes to drive that distance and there isn’t much point in driving home instead of waiting at the church for 60+ minutes for the next service. Anyway, I had considerable time to spend at church today without any assigned occupation.

In the early morning, it was very cold and windy outside (although Minnesota residents would beg to differ) and I do not do cold without a great deal of whining. As soon as I was able, I made a beeline for the church to pray.  I had just over an hour to pray in the quiet church…what a blessing! I went to my favorite prayer spot in the church (see the x on my diagram) and I knelt in prayer. Could I have prayed elsewhere? Sure. Would our Lord have heard me? Of course! Was it special to me because it was in the quiet of the church? Yes. The church itself was an aid to my devotion. Sitting in the church it was easier for me to meditate on our pastor and his needs, the needs of the congregation, and even to pray and mediate on the Sacrifice that Jesus made for me and for them. After praying for some time, being the mortal human that I am…or perhaps, just not advanced enough in prayer….I found my mind wandering. 

At this point it is necessary to describe the floor plan of my church. In the front and center of our Church is the tabernacle where the Eucharist is kept in order to be able to take Holy Communion to those who are unable to come to church. That is the central focus of the church and the architecture (early 20th century) supports that. You can see behind the Tabernacle though and there is a walkway that goes behind it that connects the vesting rooms (see diagram). In the wall behind the Tabernacle is a niche on each side and in those niches are statues. From the spot where I customarily sit, you can see a statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the really crummy pictures I scanned from our church directory, you can see a little arch of brown behind the ficus (yes really) on the left. That’s where the statue is. The other niche, which I cannot see from my favorite spot, is one of Mary.

X marks my favorite place to kneel and pray

1. Tabernacle

2. Sacred Heart of Jesus statue

3. Mary statue

4. Altar

5. Ambo (pulpit) 

6 Presider’s chair

(Sorry that it’s such a bad picture…it came from our church directory.)

Back to my mind wandering. Today there were no plants or flowers of any kind in the church because it is the start of Lent which is a “desert time” liturgically; thus, no flowers or plants. This had the effect of making the statue more visible that it is customarily. As I knelt in prayer and my mind wandered, I caught sight of the statue and I began to think about the origin of the image portrayed in the statue. I thought about St. Mary Margaret Alocoque and how she had been written off as insane and a kook for most of her life. She was horribly maligned by her fellow sisters in her convent. I thought about France at the time she was living and how the awesome holiness of the Lord had been emphasized almost to the exclusion of the Love and Mercy of Our Lord. I thought about how her perseverance in spreading the message of the Mercy of Our Lord was a gift to me. That without her, I might not have the privilege of praying in church in preparation for receiving Holy Communion as a lay person on an ordinary day. (Holy Communion was received only infrequently by the laity at the time because of their sense of unworthiness.) These and many other thoughts went through my mind as I knelt in prayer before that statue. And as a result of that meditation I returned again to my prayer to Our Lord in thanksgiving for those who persevered in obedience and for the Precious Gift of His Mercy that welcomes me even when I am unworthy. Was I praying TO the statue? No. Was I as unmistakably close to the statue as the people in the picture? No. But I was close enough that if someone had seen my gaze they might have snapped MY picture and put it on the internet as further proof of Catholic-statue-worshipping. It was an aid to my devotion. Period. It was an aid both to meditation and prayer. Could I have been closer and done the same thing and had it look more “incriminating”? Probably. Does the distance from the statue matter in this case? If I am 10 yards from the statue am I not bowing to it, but I am if I am 5 feet from it but using it in the SAME WAY as if I was 10 yards away? 50 yards?

Later that day while I was waiting for a service to finish, I occupied myself by pulling weeds in the church’s landscaping. At one point, I was down on my knees in front of a statue of St. Francis looking for weeds. I looked up and realized where I was and almost looked around to see if anyone had a camera. Fortunately, I was all by myself and there were no Jesus-is-Lord spies there. I also took a few minutes to think about the life of St. Francis, the joy with which he served Our Lord and what He taught us about appreciating God’s creation. Again, a statue served as a visual reminder that drew me into meditation about God’s gifts to us.

Now contrast this aid to devotion to my behavior at another time. Our church has an Adoration chapel. What that means is that the Eucharist is exposed in a monstrance 24 hours/day. People at our church take turns spending an hour before the Eucharist in prayer and Adoration. We do this in response to the scripture in which Jesus asks His disciples, “Could you spend an hour with me in prayer?” On Tuesday mornings, I rise in the wee hours of the morning and head to church. As soon as the person I relieve leaves, I veil myself, remove my shoes, and I prostrate myself in Adoration and Worship before the Blessed Sacrament. (I wait until the other person leaves because I really don’t want anyone thinking that I do this for show.) There is no question in my mind what I am doing. This isn’t an aid to Worship. This isn’t to help me think about Our Lord.  This is Worship. It isn’t the primary act of worship which is the Mass but in a spiritual way, I unite this time that I spend in Adoration with the Mass.

Now I am not a Hebrew scholar but I do know that there is more than one word for “bow” used in the OT and since I DO bow in worship and it looks different both in my heart and in my body, I can’t help but think that the Hebrews were lucky enough to have a word for “bow” that looks like what my “bow” does in Adoration and one that also translates “bow” that looks like what happened in the church and in the garden. I have had people that I trust tell me that my understanding is correct.

That’s just my experience and indicative of nothing except how my understanding of scripture plays out in my devotional life. If that leaves me open to the charge of intellectual duplicity because it “looks like worship but isn’t” well then I stand convicted. It is my opinion that it “looks like worship” because of the very different understanding of worship that exists outside of the Catholic Church.  For the Catholic the central and most important act of worship is what Jesus declared it to be in the New Covenant at the Last Supper. Catholics believe that during the Mass we enter into the eternal worship of heaven itself.  It is not hyperbole when a Catholic compares marital intimacy to receiving Holy Communion. Holy Communion is the Sacrament that renews the New Covenant just as marital intimacy renews the marital covenant.

That leads me to my next part. There has been a lot of discussion [on that forum] about this picture:

This picture was originally found on The Sacred Immaculate Heart of Satan page on the Jesus-is-Lord website.

In conjunction with these verses:

Exodus 20:4-5 “You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation”

Deuteronomy 5: 8-10  “You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

So first, I would like to ask the reader if they pray in their closet? Well why not? Sacred Scripture says CLEARLY….in no uncertain terms, from the words of our Savior himself….

Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”

But you say….the context of the passage in Matthew is that we aren’t supposed to do things for show! It didn’t mean that you should literally go into a closet.

Yes I say, and the context of the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy is that we should not worship things that are not the Creator of the Universe. And bowing in and of itself, is not worship.

And so we are left with a debate like all the other debates that have split Christianity into countless and counting denominations. Each Christian reserving unto him or herself the right to interpret Sacred Scripture as seems best to that individual. Is that what Jesus intended? Should scripture be interpreted by an individual or within a community? Which community? By whose authority? How does a new Christian determine which church is the correct church if they have not developed appropriate spiritual maturity?

And where did this book that we call the Bible come from? It did not drop from Mount Sinai leather bound with gilt edges. The first books of the New Testament were not even written for decades after Pentecost…..the Apostles guided the first Christians you say….well that’s true. But were there more than 12 communities of Christians? What did the communities without Apostles do? Did the Apostles lay hands on some and bestow them with the same kind of authority? If they did, why doesn’t that authority continue to this day? And who has it? Who picked the books of the Bible? When? The New Testament canon was not finalized until almost 400 AD. That’s over 300 years without a Bible. Some churches before that preach as scripture from books that did not make the New Testament canon, and some churches refused to teach as scripture from some books that did not make it into the canon. Most churches were able to afford only a few of the books anyway. How did Christians pass on the faith in the centuries that followed the adoption of the canon without their own copies of the Bible (that they couldn’t read since most were illiterate)? And why is it that the same people who had the authority to set the canon that is accepted by so many Protestants without question, not have the authority to explain what it means?

The canon set at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) was set by the authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the men that were so full of the Holy Spirit that they were able to establish the canon that remains to this day not only believed that using visual aids to devotion was acceptable, they also believed that same Church rightly reserved to herself the authority to provide a definitive interpretation of those same scriptures.