BABYLON MYSTERIES
IN CHRISTIANITY
Part One
The original book by Ralph Woodrow called "Babylon Mystery
Religion" may still be obtainable on Websites like AMAZON.COM
In chapter one Woodrow shows how the false religious systems of
the world got started after Noah's flood with Nimrod who became
famous as a hunter of wild beasts.
NOTES
CHAPTER ONE
1. Clarke, Clarke'sCommentary, vol. 1, p.86.
2. The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 9, p. 309.
3. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk.1, 4:2,3.
4. Hislop, The Two Babylons.
5. Ibid., p.12.
6. Bailey, The Legacy of Rome, p.245.
Woodrow delves into the "Mother and Child worship" that has
become such a dominant part of Roman Catholic religion.
CHAPTER TWO
1. Encyclopedia of Religions, vol.2, p.398.
2. Gross, The Heathen Religion, p.60.
3. Hislop, The Two Babylons, p.20.
4. Ibid.
5. Bach, Strange Sects and Curious Cults, p.12.
6. Frazer, The Golden Bough, vol.1, p.356.
7. Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.14, p.309.
8. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.15, p.459, art. "Virgin Mary."
9. Ibid., p.460.
10. Fausset's Bible Encyclopedia, p.484.
11. Hislop, The Two Babylons, p.20.
12. Harper's Bible Dictionary, p.47.
13. Smith, Man and His Gods, p.216.
14. Kenrick, Egypt, vol.1, p.425. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled,
p. 49.
15. Weigall, The Paganism in our Christianity, p.129.
..................
TO BE CONTINUED
Babylon Mysteries Mary and Saint Days
From the book "Babylon Mystery
Religion" by Woodrow
CHAPTER THREE
MARY WORSHIP
PERHAPS THE MOST outstanding proof that Mary worship
developed out of the old worship of the pagan mother goddess may
be seen from the fact that in pagan religion, the mother was
worshipped as much (or more) than her son! This provides an
outstanding clue to help us solve the mystery of Babylon today!
True Christianity teaches that the Lord Jesus - and HE alone - is
the way, the truth, and the life; that only HE can forgive sin;
that only HE, of all earth's creatures, has ever lived a life
that was never stained with sin; and HE is to be worshipped - not
ever his mother. But Roman Catholicism - showing the influence
that paganism has had in its development - in many ways exalts
the MOTHER also.
One can travel the world over, and whether in a massive
cathedral or in a village chapel, the statue of Mary will occupy
a prominent position. In reciting the Rosary, the "Hail Mary" is
repeated nine times as often as the "Lord's Prayer." Catholics
are taught that the reason for praying to Mary is that she can
take the petition to her son, Jesus; and since she is his mother,
he will answer the request for her sake. The inference is that
Mary is more compassionate, understanding, and merciful than her
son Jesus. Certainly this is contrary to the scriptures! Yet this
idea has often been repeated in Catholic writings.
One noted Roman Catholic writer, Alphonsus Liguori, wrote at
length telling how much more effectual prayers are that are
addressed to Mary rather than to Christ. Liguori, incidently, was
canonized as a "saint" by Pope Gregory XIV in 1839 and was
declared a "doctor" of the Catholic church by Pope Pius IX. In
one portion of his writings, he described an imaginary scene in
which a sinful man saw two ladders hanging from heaven. Mary was
at the top of one; Jesus at the top of the other. When the sinner
tried to climb the one ladder, he saw the angry face of Christ
and fell defeated. But when he climbed Mary's ladder, he ascended
easily and was openly welcomed by Mary who brought him into
heaven and presented him to Christ! Then all was well. The story
was supposed to show how much easier and more effective it is to
go to Christ through Mary (Boettner - "Roman Catholicism, p.147).
The same writer said that the sinner who ventures to come
directly to Christ may come with dread of his wrath. But if he
will pray to the Virgin, she will only have to "show" that "the
breasts that Will gave him suck" and his wrath will be
immediately appeased! (Hislop - "Two Babylons, p.158).
Such reasoning is in direct conflict with a scriptural
example. "Blessed is the womb that bare thee", a woman said to
Jesus,"and the paps that thou has sucked!" But Jesus answered,
"Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep
it" (Lk.11:27,28).
Such ideas about the breasts, on the other hand, were not
foreign to the worshippers of the pagan mother goddess. Images of
her have been unearthed which often show her breasts extremely
out of proportion to her body. In the case of Diana, to symbolize
her fertility, she is pictured with as many as one hundred
breasts!
Further attempts to exalt Mary to a glorified position
within Catholicism may be seen in the doctrine of the "immaculate
conception." This doctrine was pronounced and defined by Pius IX
in 1854 - that the Blessed Virgin Man "in the first instant of
her conception... was preserved exempt from all stain of original
sin" (Catholic Ency. vol.7,p.674 art, "Immaculate conception").
It would appear that this teaching is only a further effort
to make Mary more closely resemble the goddess of paganism, for
in the old myths, the goddess was also believed to have had a
supernatural conception! The stories varied, but all told of
supernatural happenings in connection with her entrance into the
world, that she was superior to ordinary mortals, that she was
divine. Little by little, so that the teachings about Mary
would not appear inferior to those of the mother goddess, it was
necessary to teach that Mary's entrance into this world involved
a supernatural element also!
Is the doctrine that Mary was born without the stain of
original sin scriptural? We will answer this in the words of The
Catholic Encyclopedia itself: "No direct or categorical and
stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from
Scripture" It is pointed out, rather, that these ideas were a
gradual development within the church (Ibid.,p.675).
Right here it should be explained that this is a basic,
perhaps the basic, difference between the Roman Catholic approach
to Christianity and the general Protestant view. The Roman
Catholic church, as it acknowledges, has long grown and developed
around a multitude of traditions and ideas handed down by church
fathers over the centuries, even beliefs brought over from
paganism if they could be "Christianized" and also the
scriptures. Concepts from all of these sources have been mixed
together and developed, finally to become dogmas at various
church councils. On the other hand, the view which the Protestant
Reformation sought to revive was a return to the actual
scriptures as a more sound basis for doctrine, with little or no
emphasis on the ideas that developed in later centuries.
Going right to the scriptures, not only is any proof for the
idea of the immaculate conception of Mary lacking, there is
evidence to the contrary. While she was a chosen vessel of the
Lord, was a godly and virtuous woman - a virgin - she was as much
a human as any other member of Adam's family. "All have sinned
and come short of the glory of God" (Rom.3:23), the only
exception being Jesus Christ himself. Like everyone else, Mary
needed a savior and plainly admitted this when she said: "And my
spirit hath rejoiced in God my SAVIOR" (Lk.1:47).
If Mary needed a savior, she was not a savior herself. If
she needed a savior, then she needed to be saved, forgiven, and
redeemed - even as others. The fact is, our Lord's divinity did
not depend on his mother being some type of exalted, divine
person. Instead, he was divine because he was the only begotten
son of God. His divinity came from his heavenly Father.
The idea that Mary was superior to other human beings was not the
teaching of Jesus. Once someone mentioned his mother and
brethren. Jesus asked, "Who is my mother? and who are my
brethren?" Then, stretching forth his hand toward his disciples,
said, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For WHOSOEVER shall do
the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother,
and sister, and MOTHER" (Matt.12:46-50). Plainly enough, anyone
who does the will of God is, in a definite sense, on the same
level with Mary.
Each day Catholics the world over recite the Hail Mary, the
Rosary, the Angelus, the Litanies of the Blessed Virgin, and
others. Multiplying the number of these prayers, times the number
of Catholics who recite them each day, someone has estimated that
Mary would have to listen to 46,296 petitions a second! Obviously
no one but God himself could do this. Nevertheless, Catholics
believe that Mary hears all of these prayers; and so, of
necessity, they have had to exalt her to the divine level -
scriptural or not!
Attempting to justify the way Mary has been exalted, some
have quoted the words of Gabriel to Mary, "Blessed art thou among
women" (Lk.1:28). But Mary being "blessed among women" cannot
make her a divine person, for many centuries before this, a
similar blessing was pronounced upon Jael, of whom it was said:
"Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.
..."(Judges 5:24).
Before Pentecost, Mary gathered with the other disciples
waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit. We read that the
apostles "all continued with one accord in prayer and
supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and
his brethren" (Acts 1:14). Typical of Catholic ideas concern-
ing Mary, the illustration (as seen in the Official Baltimore
Catechisms) attempts to give to Mary a central position. But as
all students of the Bible know, the disciples were not looking to
Mary on that occasion. They were looking to their resurrected and
ascended CHRIST to outpour on them the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We notice also in the drawing that the Holy Spirit (as a dove) is
seen hovering over her! Yet, as far as the scriptural account is
concerned, the only one upon whom the Spirit as a dove descended
was Jesus himself - not his mother! On the other hand, the pagan
virgin goddess under the name of Juno was often represented with
a dove on her head, as was also Astarte, Cybele, and Isis! (Doane
- "Bible Myths, p.357).
Further attempts to glorify Mary may be seen in the Roman
Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity. This is the
teaching that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. But as
The Encyclopedia Britannica explains, the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary was not taught until about three
hundred years after the ascension of Christ. It was not until the
Council of Chalcedon in 451 that this fabulous quality gained the
official recognition of Rome.
According to the scriptures, the birth of Jesus was the
result of a supernatural conception (Matt.1:23), without an
earthly father. But after Jesus was born, Mary gave birth to
other children - the natural offspring of her union with Joseph,
her husband. Jesus was Mary's "firstborn" son (Matt.1:25); it
does not say he was her only child. Jesus being her firstborn
child could certainly infer that later she had a second-born
child, possibly a third-born child, etc. That such was the case
seems apparent, for the names of four brothers are mentioned:
James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt.13:55). Sisters are also
mentioned. The people of Nazareth said: " . . . and his sisters,
are they not all with us?" (verse 56). The word "sisters" is
plural, of course, so we know that Jesus had at least two sisters
and probably more, for this verse speaks of "all" his sisters.
Usually if we are referring to only two people, we would say
"both" of them, not "all" of them. The implication is that at
least three sisters are referred to. If we figure three sisters
and four brothers, half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus, this
would make Mary the mother of eight children.
The scriptures say: "Joseph ... knew her not till she had
brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS"
(Matt.1:25). Joseph "knew her not" until after Jesus was born,
but after that, Mary and Joseph did come together as husband and
wife and children were born to them. The idea that Joseph kept
Mary as a virgin all of her life is clearly unscriptural.
During the times of the falling away, as though to more
closely identify Mary with the mother goddess, some taught that
Mary's body never saw corruption, that she bodily ascended into
heaven, and is now the "queen of heaven." It was not until this
present century, however, that the doctrine of the "assumption"
of Mary was officially proclaimed as a doctrine of the Roman
Catholic church. It was in 1951 that Pope Pius XII proclaimed
that Mary's body saw no corruption, but was taken to
heaven.(Catholic Ency.vol.2,p.632, art, "Assumption, Feast of").
The words of St.Bernard sum up the Roman Catholic position:
"On the third day after Mary's death, when the apostles gathered
around her tomb, they found it empty. The sacred body had been
carried up to the Celestial Paradise... the grave had no power
over one who was immaculate... But it was not enough that Mary
should be received into heaven. She was to be no ordinary
citizen... she had a dignity beyond the reach even of the highest
of the archangels. Mary was to be crowned Queen of Heaven by the
eternal Father: she was to have a throne at her Son's right hand
... Now day by day, hour by hour, she is praying for us,
obtaining graces for us, preserving us from danger, shielding us
from temptation, showering down blessings upon us."
All of these ideas about Mary are linked with the belief
that she bodily ascended into heaven. But the Bible says
absolutely nothing about the assumption of Mary. To the contrary,
John 3:13 says: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" -
Jesus Christ himself. HE is the one that is at God's right hand,
HE is the one that is our mediator, HE is the one that showers
down blessings upon us - not his mother!
Closely connected with the idea of praying to Mary is an
instrument called the rosary. It consists of a chain with fifteen
sets of small beads, each set marked off by one large bead. The
ends of this chain are joined by a medal bearing the imprint of
Mary. From this hangs a short chain at the end of which is a
crucifix. The beads on the rosary are for counting prayers -
prayers that are repeated over and over. Though this instrument
is widely used within the Roman Catholic church, it is clearly
not of Christian origin. It has been known in many countries.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "In almost all countries, then,
we meet with something in the nature of prayer-counters or
rosary-beads." It goes on to cite a number of examples, including
a sculpture of ancient Nineveh, mentioned by Layard, of two
winged females praying before a sacred tree, each holding a
rosary. For centuries, among the Mohammedans, a bead-string
consisting of 33,66, or 99 beads has been used for counting the
names of Allah. Marco Polo, in the thirteenth century, was
surprised to find the King of Malabar using a rosary of precious
stones to count his prayers. St.Francis Xavier and his companions
were equally astonished to see that rosaries were universally
familiar to the Buddhists of Japan (Catholic Ency. vol.13, p.185,
art, "Rosary").
Among the Phoenicians a circle of beads resembling a rosary
was used in the worship of Astarte, the mother goddess, about 800
B.C. (Seymour - "The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art,
p.21). This rosary is seen on some early Phoenician coins. The
Brahmans have from early times used rosaries with tens and
hundreds of beads. The worshippers of Vishnu give their children
rosaries of 108 beads. A similar rosary is used by millions of
Buddhists in India and Tibet. The worshipper of Siva uses a
rosary upon which he repeats, if possible, all the 1,008 names of
his god (Ency.of Religions, vol. 3, pp, 203-205).
Beads for the counting of prayers were known in Asiatic
Greece. Such was the purpose, according to Hislop, for the
necklace seen on the statue of Diana. He also points out that in
Rome, certain necklaces worn by women were for counting or
remembering prayers, the "monile," meaning "remembrancer."
(Hislop - "Two Babylons" pp.187-188).
The most often repeated prayer and the main prayer of the
rosary is the "Hail Mary" which is as follows: "Hail Mary, full
of grace, the Lord is with thee; Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of
God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death, Amen."
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "There is little or no trace of
the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about
1050" (Catholic Ency. vol.7, p.111, art "Hail Mary"). The
complete rosary involves repeating the Hail Mary 53 times, the
Lord's prayer 6 times, 5 Mysteries, 5 Meditations on the
Mysteries, 5 Glory Be's, and the Apostles' Creed.
Notice that the prayer to Mary, the Hail Mary, is repeated
almost NINE times as often as the Lord's prayer! Is a prayer
composed by men and directed to Mary nine times as important or
effective as the prayer taught by Jesus and directed to God?
Those who worshipped the goddess Diana repeated a religious
phrase over and over - "...all with one voice about the space of
two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (Acts
19:34). Jesus spoke of repetitious prayer as being a practice of
the heathen. "When ye pray," he said, "use not vain repetitions,
as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for
their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your
Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him"
(Matt.6:7-13). In this passage, Jesus plainly told his followers
NOT to pray a little prayer over and over. It is significant to
notice that it was right after giving this warning, in the very
next verse, that he said: "After this manner therefore pray ye:
Our Father which art in heaven..." and gave the disciples what we
refer to as "The Lord's Prayer." Jesus gave this prayer as an
opposite to the heathen type of prayer. Yet Roman Catholics are
taught to pray this prayer over and over. If this prayer was not
to be repeated over and over, how much less a little man-made
prayer to Mary! It seems to us that memorizing prayers, then
repeating them over and over while counting rosary beads, could
easily become more of a "memory test" than a spontaneous
expression of prayer from the heart.
CHAPTER FOUR
SAINTS, SAINTS' DAYS, and SYMBOLS
IN ADDITION TO the prayers and devotions that are directed
to Mary, Roman Catholics also honor and pray to various "saints."
These saints, according to the Catholic position, are martyrs or
other notable people of the church who have died and whom the
Popes have pronounced saints.
In many minds, the word "saint" refers only to a person who
has attained some special degree of holiness, only a very unique
follower of Christ. But according to the Bible, ALL true
Christians are saints - even those who may sadly lack spiritual
maturity or knowledge. Thus, the writings of Paul to Christians
at Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, or Rome, were addressed "to the
saints" (Eph.1:1, etc.). Saints, it should be noticed, were
living people, not those who had died.
If we want a "saint" to pray for us, it must be a living
person. But if we try to commune with people that have died, what
else is this but a form of spiritism? Repeatedly the Bible
condemns all attempts to commune with the dead (see Isaiah 8:19,
20). Yet many recite the "Apostles' Creed" which says: "We
believe ... in the communion of saints." supposing that such
includes the idea of prayers for and to the dead. Concerning this
very point, The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Catholic teaching
regarding prayers for the dead is bound up inseparably with the
doctrine ... of the c o m m u n i o n of saints which is an
article of the Apostles' Creed." Prayers "to the saints and
martyrs collectively, or to some one of them in particular" are
recommended (Catholic Ency." vol.4,p.653.655, art "Prayers for
the dead" ). The actual wording of the Council of Trent is that
"the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own
prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to
invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help
for obtaining benefits from God" (Ibid., vol 8, p.70, art
"Intercession").
What are the objections to these beliefs? We will let "The
Catholic Encyclopedia" answer for itself. "The chief objections
raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are
that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we
should have in God alone ... and that they cannot be proved from
Scriptures..." (Ibid). With this statement we agree. Nowhere do
the scriptures indicate that the living can be blessed or
benefited by prayers to or through those who have already died.
Instead, in many ways, the Catholic doctrines regarding "saints"
are very similar to the old pagan ideas that were held regarding
the "gods."
Looking back again to the "mother" of false religion -
Babylon - we find that the people prayed to and honored a
plurality of gods. In fact, the Babylonian system developed until
it had some 5,000 gods and goddesses (Hays - "In the Beginning"
vol.2,p.65). In much the same way as Catholics believe
concerning their "saints", the Babylonians believed that their
"gods" had at one time been living here on earth, but were now
on a higher plane ("Ency. of Religion" vol.2,p.78). "Every month
and every day of the month was under the protection of a
particular divinity" (Williams - "The Historians' History of the
World" vol.1,p.518). There was a god for this problem, a god for
each of the different occupations, a god for this and a god for
that.
From Babylon-like the worship of the great mother - such
concepts about the "gods" spread to the nations. Even the
Buddhists in China had their "worship of various deities, as the
goddess of sailors, the god of war, the gods of special
neighborhoods or occupations" (Dobbins - "Story of the World's
Worship" p.621). The Syrians believed the powers of certain gods
were limited to certain areas, as an incident in the Bible
records: "Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were
stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and
surely we shall be stronger than they" (1 Kings 20:23).
When Rome conquered the world, these same ideas were very
much in evidence as the following sketch will show. "Brighit" was
goddess of smiths and poetry. "Juno Regina" was the goddess of
womanhood and marriage. "Minerva" was the goddess of wisdom,
handicrafts, and musicians. "Venus" was the goddess of sexual
love and birth. "Vesta" was the goddess of bakers and sacred
fires. "Ops" was the goddess of wealth. "Ceres" was the goddess
of corn, wheat, and growing vegetation. (Our word "cereal"
fittingly, comes from her name.) "Hercules" was the god of joy
and wine. "Mercury" was the god of orators and, in the old
fables, quite an orator himself, which explains why the people of
Lystra thought of Paul as the god Mercury (Acts 14:11,12). The
gods "Castor" and "Pollux" were the protectors of Rome and of
travellers at sea (cf. Acts 28:11). "Cronus" was the guardian of
oaths. "Janus" was the god of doors and gates. "There were gods
who presided over every moment of a man's life, gods of house and
garden, of food and drink, of health and sickness" (Durant - "The
Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ, pp.61-63).
With the idea of gods and goddesses associated with various
events in life now established in pagan Rome, it was but another
step for these same concepts to finally be merged into the church
of Rome. Since converts from paganism were reluctant to part with
their "gods" - unless they could find some satisfactory
counterpart in Christianity - the gods and goddesses were renamed
and called "saints." The old idea of gods associated with certain
occupations and days has continued in the Roman Catholic belief
in saints and saints'days, as the following table shows.
Actors - St. Genesius - August 25; Architects - St. Thomas -
ecember 21; Astonomers - St. Cominic - August 4; Athletes -
St. Sebastain - January 20; Bakers - St. Elizabeth -
November 19; Bankers - St. Matthew - September 21; Beggars -
St. Alexius - July 17; Book Sellers- St. John of God - March 8;
Bricklayers - St. Steven - December 26; Builders - St. Vincent -
April 5; Butchers - St. Hadrian - September 28; Cab drivers -
St. Fiarce - August 30; Candle-makers - St. Bernard -
August 20; Comedians - St. Vitus - June 15; Cooks - St. Martha
- July 29; Dentists - St. Appollonia - February 9; Doctors -
St. Luke - October 18; Editors - St. John Bosco - January 31;
Fishermen - St. Andrew - November 30; Florists - St. Dorothy
- February 6; Hat makers - St. James - May 11; Housekeepers -
St. Anne - July 26; Hunters - St. Hubert - November 3; Laborers
- St. James the Greater - July 25; Lawyers - St. Ives -May 19;
Librarians - St. Jerome - September 30; Merchants - St. Francis
of Assisi - October 4; Miners - St. Barbara - December 4;
Musicians - St. Cecilia - November 22; Notaries - St. Mark the
Evangelist - April 25; Nurses - St. Cathrine - April 30; Painter
- St. Luke - October 18; Pharmacists - St. Gemma Galgani - April
11; Plasterers - St. Bartholomew - August 24; Printers -
St. John of God - March 8; Sailors - St. Brendan - May 16;
Scientists - St. Albert - November 15; Singers - St. Gregory
- March 12; Steel workers - St. Eliguis - December 1; Students
- St. Thomas Aquinas - March 7; Surgeons - S.S. Cosmas & Damian
- September 27; Tailors - St. Boniface of Credtion - June 5;
Tax Collectors - St. Matthew - September 21;
The Roman Catholic Church also has saints for the following
Barren women - St. Anthony; Old maids - St. Andrew;
Beer drinkers - St. Nicholas; Poor - St. Lawrence;
Children - St. Dominic; Pregnant women - St. Gerard;
Domestic animals - St. Anthony; Television - St. Clare;
Emigrants - St. Francis; Temptation - St. Syriacus;
Family troubles - St. Eustachius; To apprehend thieves - St.
Gervase; Fire - St. Lawrence; To have children - St. Felicitas;
Floods - St. Columban; To obtain a husband - St. Joseph;
lightning storms - St. Barbara; To obtain a wife - St. Anne;
Lovers - St. Raphael; To find lost articles - St. Anthony;
Catholics are taught to pray to certain "saints" for help with
the following afflictions:
Arthritis - St. James; Epilepsy, nerves - St. Vitus;
Bite of dogs - St. Hubert; Fever - St. George;
Bite of snakes - St. Hilary; Foot diseases - St. Victor;
Blindness - St. Raphael; Gall stones - St. Liberius;
Cancer - St. Peregrine; Gout - St. Andrew; Cramps - St.Murice;
Headaches - St. Denis; Deafness - St. Cadoc; Heart trouble - St.
John of God; Disease of breast - St. Agatha; Insanity - St.
Dympna; Disease of eyes - St. Lucy; Skin disease - St. Roch;
Disease of throat - St. Blase; Sterility - St. Giles;
St.Hubert was born about 656 and appeared on our list as
the patron saint of hunters and healer of hydrophobia. Before his
conversion, almost all of his time was spent hunting. On a Good
Friday morning, according to legend, he pursued a large stag
which suddenly turned and he saw a crucifix between its antlers
and heard a voice tell him to turn to God.
But why pray to saints when Christians have access to God?
Catholics are taught that through praying to saints, they may be
able to obtain help that God otherwise might not give! They are
told to worship God and then to "pray, first to Saint Mary, and
the holy apostles, and the holy martyrs, and all God's saints
.... to consider them as friends and protectors, and to implore
their aid in the hour of distress, with the hope that God would
grant to the patron what he might otherwise refuse to the
supplicant" (Catholic Ency. vol.4,p.173, art "Communion of
Saints").
Everything considered, it seems evident that the Roman
Catholic system of patron saints developed out of the earlier
beliefs in gods devoted to days, occupations, and the various
needs of human life.
Many of the old legends that had been associated with the
pagan gods were transferred over to the saints. The Catholic
Encyclopedia even says these "legends repeat the conceptions
found in the pre-Christian religious tales ... The legend is not
Christian, only Christianized ... In many cases it has obviously
the same origin as the myth ... Antiquity traced back sources,
whose natural elements it did not understand, to the heroes; such
was also the case with many legends of the saints ... It became
easy to transfer to the Christian martyrs the conceptions which
the ancients held concerning their heroes. This transference was
promoted by the numerous cases in which Christian saints became
the successors of local deities, and Christian worship supplanted
the ancient local worship. This explains the great number of
similarities between gods and saints" (Ibid.,vol,9,pp.130,131,art
Legends").
As paganism and Christianity were mixed together, sometimes
a saint was given a similar sounding name as that of the pagan
god or goddess it replaced. The goddess "Victoria" of the
Basses-Alpes was renamed as St.Victoire, "Cheron" as St.Ceranos,
"Artemis" as St.Artemidos, "Dionysus" as St.Dionysus, etc. The
goddess "Brighit" (regarded as the daughter of the sungod and who
was represented with a child in her arms) was smoothly renamed as
"Saint Bridget." In pagan days, her chief temple at Kildare was
served by Vestal Virgins who tended the sacred fires. Later her
temple became a convent and her vestals, nuns. They continued to
tend the ritual fire, only it was now called "St.Bridget's fire"
(Urin - "Festivals, Holy Days, and Saints' Day" p.26).
The best preserved ancient temple now remaining in Rome is
the Pantheon which in olden times was dedicated (according to the
inscription over the portico) to "Jove and all the gods." This
was reconsecrated by Pope Boniface IV to "The Virgin Mary and all
the saints." Such practices were not uncommon. "Churches or ruins
of churches have been frequently found on the sites where pagan
shrines or temples originally stood ... It is also to some extent
true that sometimes the saint whose aid was to be invoked at the
Christian shrine bore some outward analogy to the deity
previously hallowed in that place. Thus in Athens the shrine of
the healer Asklepios ... when it became a church, was made sacred
to the two saints whom the Christian Athenians invoked as
miraculous healers, Kosmas and Damian" (Catholic Ency.
vol.2,p.44, art "Athens").
A cave shown in Bethlehem as the place in which Jesus was
born, was, according to Jerome, actually a rock shrine in which
the Babylonian god Tammuz had been worshipped. The scriptures
never state that Jesus was born in a cave. Throughout the Roman
Empire, paganism died in one form, only to live again within the
Roman Catholic church. Not only did the devotion to the old gods
continue (in a new form), but the use of statues of these gods as
well. In some cases, it is said, the very same statues that had
been worshipped as pagan gods were renamed as Christian saints.
Through the centuries, more and more statues were made, until
today there are churches in Europe which contain as many as two,
three, and four thousand statues (Hasting's Ency.of Religion and
Ethics, art "Omage and Idols"). In large impressive cathedrals,
in small chapels, at wayside shrines, on the dashboards of
automobiles - in all these places the idols of Catholicism may be
found in abundance.
The use of such idols within the Roman Catholic Church
provides another clue in solving the mystery of modern Babylon;
for, as Herodotus mentioned, Babylon was the source from which
all systems of idolatry flowed to the nations. To link the word
"idols" with statues of Mary and the saints may sound quite harsh
to some. But can this be totally incorrect? It is admitted in
Catholic writings that at numerous times and among various
people, images of the saints have been worshipped in
superstitious ways. Such abuses, however, are generally placed
in the past. It is explained that in this enlightened age, no
educated person actually worships the object itself, but rather
what the object represents. Generally this is true. But is this
not also true of heathen tribes that use idols (unmistakably
idols) in the worship of demon-gods? Most of these do not believe
the idol itself is a god, but only representative of the
demon-god they worship.
Several articles within "The Catholic Encyclopedia" seek to
explain that the use of images is proper on the basis of them
being representative of Christ or the saints. "The honor which is
given to them is referred to the objects which they represent, so
that through the images which we kiss, and before which we
uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the
saints whose likenesses they are" (Catholic Ency.vol.7,p.636, art
"Idolatry").
Not all Christians are convinced, however, that this
"explanation" is strong enough reason to bypass verses such as
Exodus 20:4,5: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is
in the earth beneath, or that is underneath the earth: Thou shalt
not bow down thyself to them."
In the Old Testament, when the Israelites conquered a
heathen city or country, they were not to adopt the idols of
these people into their religion. Such were to be destroyed, even
though they might be covered with silver and gold! "The graven
images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not
desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it
unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination
to the Lord" (Deut.7:25). They were to "destroy all their
pictures" of pagan gods also (Numbers 33:52).
To what extent these instructions were to be carried out
under the New Testament has been often debated over the
centuries. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a historical sketch of
this, showing how people fought and even died over this very
issue, especially in the eighth century. Though upholding the use
of statues and pictures, it says "there seems to have been a
dislike of holy pictures, a suspicion that their use was, or
might become, idolatrous, among certain Christians for many
centuries," and mentions several Catholic bishops who were of
this same opinion (Ibid.,p.620, art, "Iconoclasm").
For people to fight and kill each other over this issue -
regardless of which side they were on - was unmistakably contrary
to the teachings of Christ.
The pagans placed a circle or aureole around the heads of
those who were "gods" in their pictures. This practice continued
right on in the art of the Romish church ... St. Augustine is
shown in Catholic books - with a circular disk around his head.
All Catholic saints are pictured this same way. But to see that
this practice was borrowed from heathenism, we need only to
notice the drawing of Buddha which also features the circular
symbol around his head! The artists and sculptors of ancient
Babylon used the disk or aureola around any being they wished to
represent as a god or goddess (Inman - Ancient Pagan and Modern
Christian Symbolism" p.35). The Romans depicted "Circe," the
pagan goddess of the sun, with a circle surrounding her head.
From its use in pagan Rome, the same symbolism passed into papal
Rome and has continued to this day, as evidenced in thousands of
paintings of Mary and the saints.
Pictures, supposedly of Christ, were painted with "golden
beams" surrounding his head. This was exactly the way the sungod
of the pagans had been represented for centuries.
The church of the first four centuries used no pictures of
Christ. The scriptures do not give us any description of the
physical features of Jesus whereby an accurate painting could be
made of him. It seems evident, then, that the pictures of Christ,
like those of Mary and the saints, have come from the
imaginations of artists. We only have to make a short study of
religious art to find that in different centuries and among
different nationalities, many pictures of Christ - some very
different - may be found. Obviously all of these cannot be what
he looked like. Besides, having now ascended into heaven, we no
longer know him "after the flesh" (2 Cor.5:16), having been
"glorified" (John 7:39), and with a "glorious body" (Phil. 3:21),
not even the best artist in the world could portray the King in
his beauty. Any picture, even at its best, could never show how
wonderful he really is!
...............
TO BE CONTINUED
With what we have learnt above about Saints and Saints' Days, we
can now come to see what Paul was instructing and correcting the
people of Galatia about, in Galatians 4:8-11.
Verse eight, Paul talks to those who "knew NOT God, yet did
service unto them which by nature are no gods." Paul is NOT
addressing the Jews (who did know God, having a form of
knowledge, but without proper understanding) - he is talking now
to those who DID NOT know the true God, but who had served false
gods, that were not gods in any form or shape.
Verse nine, Paul says they HAD COME TO KNOW God, or God was
knowing them, as now being called of God to His light and
service, and true way to live and practice.
Then he says, "how TURN you AGAIN to the weak and beggarly
rudiments where you desire to be in bondage." They were TURNING
BACK, and the Greek here is "back to" "again at first" "again
anew" - it is indeed meaning "back again to" as doing something
that they once did and were now returning to it once again.
None of God's commandments of any kind, can be considered "weak
and beggarly" - if they are from God, they are from HIM, and so
have a purpose. God does not do anything that is "weak and
beggarly."
The Galatians (many of them) had returned to their former ways.
The ones who at one time "knew not God" but had "served gods that
were not gods" had again gone back to serving the weak and
beggarly rudiments of the gods of this world, the false customs
and practices and traditions, that belonged to the worship and
service of false gods. In that service of bondage was the
observance of "days, and months, and times, and years."
Woodrow has brought out in some detail what many of those
observance days etc. were.
This section of Galatians HAS NOTHING TO DO with God's holy days,
calendar, new month days, and the Festival observance that is
ordained of God, BUT it has everything to do with people who have
come out of false observances of false gods, that they once
observed, coming to KNOW the true Eternal God and all His true
ways, and then turning from them and turning back AGAIN to the
bondage of the false customs and traditions and observances of
the world of gods that are no gods - Keith Hunt
Babylon Mysteries Buying salvation and Peter the Pope? by
Ralph Woodrow
CHAPTER NINE
RELIGIOUS FRAUD
THE SALE OF relics, church offices, and indulgences became
big business within the church of the Middle Ages. Pope Boniface
VIII declared a jubilee for the year 1300 and offered liberal
indulgences to those who would make a pilgrimage to St.Peter's.
An estimated 2,000,000 people came within that year and deposited
such treasure before the supposed tomb of St.Peter that two
priests with rakes in their hands were kept busy day and night
raking up the money.1
Much of this was used by the Pope to enrich his own
relatives - the Gaetani - who bought numerous castles and
splendid estates in Latium. This was strongly resented by the
people of Rome.
From the days of Constantine, the Roman church had increased
in wealth at a rapid pace. In the Middle Ages, the church owned
entire cities and large portions of land. Those who lived in
Catholic countries were required to pay taxes to the church. This
was not giving from the heart, but fees paid "of necessity" - a
principle which was opposed by the apostle Paul (2 Cor.9:7). In
those days, few people knew how to write, so priests were often
involved in drafting wills. In 1170 Pope Alexander III decreed
that no one could make a valid will except in the presence of a
priest! Any secular notary who drew up a will (except under these
circumstances) was to be excommunicated! 2
Often a priest was the last person to be with a dying man,
for he would give the last rites, the Extreme Unction. With such
arrangements, we can be sure the Romish church was well
remembered.
Another source of money was the selling of indulgences. The
Catholic Encyclopedia explains that sins committed after baptism
(which for a Catholic is usually in infancy!) can be forgiven
through the sacrament of penance. "but there still remains the
temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this
requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in
the world to come, i.e. in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the
penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during this
life on earth.3
Many have only had a general idea of what the word
indulgence implies.
Woodrow goes into more detail of "buying" salvation.
CHAPTER TEN
WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?
STANDING AT THE head of the Roman Catholic church is the
Pope of Rome. This man - according to Catholic doctrine - is the
earthly head of the church and successor of the apostle Peter.
According to this belief, Christ appointed Peter as the first
pope, who in turn went to Rome and served in this capacity for
twenty-five years. Beginning with Peter, the Catholic church
claims a succession of Popes which has continued to this day.
This is a very important part of Roman Catholic doctrine. But do
the scriptures teach that Christ ordained ONE man to be above all
others in his church? Can we find any scriptural authority for
the office of a Pope, a supreme pontiff? Did the early Christians
recognize Peter as such?
To the contrary, the Scriptures clearly show there was to be
an equality among the members of the church and that CHRIST "is
the head of the church" (Eph.5:23), not the Pope!
James and John once came to Jesus asking if one of them
might sit on his right hand and the other on his left in the
kingdom. (In Eastern kingdoms, the two principal ministers of
state, ranking next in authority to the king, hold these
positions.) If the Roman Catholic claim is true, it seems that
Jesus would have explained that he had given the place on his
right to Peter and did not intend to create any position on the
left! But to the contrary, here was the answer of Jesus: "Ye know
that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and
they that are great exercise dominion upon them, but it shall not
be so among you" (Mk.10:35-43).
In this statement, Jesus plainly said that none of them was
to be a ruler over the others. Instead, he taught an equality
clearly denying the principles that are involved in having a
Pope ruling over the church as the Bishop of bishops!
Woodrow gives more Bible proof that Peter was not Pope of the church.
On this subject of Peter being the "head" apostle I have written
in detail, as well as "church government" as a whole. See my
studies for an in-depth expounding of this subject - Keith Hunt.
NOTES:
CHAPTER NINE
1. Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Age of Faith, p.753.
2. Ibid., p.766.
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.783, art. "Indulgences."
4. Ibid., p.784.
5. Ibid., pp.786,787.
6. Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, p.23.
7. Ibid., p.735.
8. Encyclopedia of Religions, vol.2, p.159.
9. Smith, Man and His Gods, p.127.
10. Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.22, p.660.
11. Hislop, The Two Babylons, p.167.
12. Fausset's Bible Encyclopedia, p.481.
13. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, No.8612.
.................
TO BE CONTINUED
Babylon Mysteries The Dress and outward Form
by
R.Woodrow
CHAPTER ELEVEN
PAGAN ORIGIN OF PAPAL OFFICE
NIMROD, THE KING and founder of Babylon, was not only its
political leader, he was its religious leader also. He was a
priest-king. From Nimrod descended a line of priest-kings - each
standing at the head of the occult Babylonian mystery religion.
This line continued on down to the days of Belshazzar of whom we
read in the Bible. Many are familiar with the feast he held in
Babylon when the mysterious handwriting appeared on the wall.
Some have failed to recognize, however, that this gathering was
more than a mere social party! It was a religious gathering, a
celebration of the Babylonian mysteries of which Belshazzar was
the head at that time. "They drank wine, and praised the gods of
gold, and of silver, and of brass, of iron, of wood, and of
stone" (Dan.5:4). Adding to the blasphemy of the occasion, they
drank their wine from the holy vessels of the Lord which had been
taken from the Jerusalem temple. This attempt to mix that which
was holy with that which was heathenism brought about Divine
judgment. Babylon was marked for doom...
But though the city was destroyed, concepts that were a
part of the old Babylon religion survived!
When Rome conquered the world, the paganism that had spread
from Babylon and developed in various nations, was merged into
the religious system of Rome. This included the idea of a Supreme
Pontiff (Pontifex Maximus). Thus Babylonian paganism, which had
originally been carried out under the rulership of Nimrod, was
united under the rulership of one man at Rome:
Julius Caesar. It was the year 63 B.C. that Julius Caesar
was officially recognized as the "Pontifex Maximus" of the
mystery religion - now established at Rome.
Woodrow further expounds how paganism was mixed with Christianity.
NOTES:
CHAPTER ELEVEN
1. Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, p.602 (quoted by Hislop, p.208).
2. Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.210.
3. Ibid.,
4. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, no.6363.
5. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7. p.699, art. "Impostors."
6. Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.207.
7. Smith, 'Man and His Gods,' p.129.
8. Encyclopedia of Religions, vol.2, p.311, art. "Janus."
9. Ibid., p.545.
10. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.10, p.403, art. "Mithraism."
11. Durant, 'The Story of Civilization' The Age of Faith, p.745.
12. Inman, 'Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,' pp.
63,64.
13. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, no.1709 and
1712.
14. Encyclopedia of Religions, vol.1, p.502, art. "Dagon."
15. Inman, 'Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,' p. 21.
166
16. Layard, 'Babylon and Nineveh,' p. 343.
17. Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.216.
18. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.3, p.554, art. "Chair of
Peter."
19. Ibid., vol.2, p.185, art. "Babylonia."
20. Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, art, "Images
and Idols."
21. Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.214.
22. Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.22, p.81, art. "Pope."
23. Aradi, 'The Popes - The History of How They are Chosen,
Elected, and Crowned,' p.108.
...............
TO BE CONTINUED
Babylon Mysteries Some sins of some Popes by
Ralph Woodrow
CHAPTER TWELVE
PAPAL IMMORALITY
IN ADDITION TO the conclusive evidence that has been given,
the very character and morals of many of the Popes would tend to
identify them as successors of pagan priests, rather than
representatives of Christ or Peter. Some of the Popes were so
depraved and base in their actions, even people who professed no
religion at all were ashamed of them. Such sins as adultery,
sodomy, simony, rape, murder, and drunkenness are among the sins
that have been committed by Popes. To link such sins with men who
have claimed to be the "Holy Father", "The Vicar of Christ", and
Bishop of bishops", may sound shocking, but those acquainted with
the history of the Papacy well know that not all Popes were holy
men.
Pope Sergius III (904-911) obtained the papal office by
murder. The annals of the church of Rome tell about his life of
open sin with Marozia who bore him several illegitimate
children.1 He was described by Baronius as a "monster" and by
Gregorovius as a "terrorizing criminal." Says a historian: "For
seven years this man ... occupied the chair of St.Peter, while
his concubine and her Semiramis-like mother held court with a
pomp and voluptuousness that recalled the worse days of the
ancient empire."2
Many more immoral acts and practices of the Popes are given.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
ARE POPES INFALLIBLE?
ADDING TO THE many contradictions with which the Romish
system was already plagued, there were Popes, like the god Janus
of olden times, who began to claim they were "infallible." People
naturally questioned how infallibility could be linked with the
papal office when some of the Popes had been very poor examples
in morals and integrity. And if the infallibility be applied only
to doctrines pronounced by the Popes, how was it that some Popes
had disagreed with other Popes? Even a number of the Popes
including Virilinus, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI,
Hadrian VI, and Paul IV - had rejected the doctrine of papal
infallibility! Just how could all of this be explained in an
acceptable manner and formulated into a dogma? Such was the task
of the Vatican Council of 1870.
The Council sought to narrow the meaning of infallibility
down to a workable definition, applying such only to papal
pronouncements made "ex cathedra." The wording finally adopted
was this: "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra - that
is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of
all Christians he defines ... a doctrine of faith or morals to be
held by the whole Church - is, by reason of the Divine assistance
promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility
... and consequently such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
irreformable."l
All of the problems were not solved by this wording,
nevertheless papal infallibility became an official dogma of the
Roman Catholic Church at the Vatican Council of 1870.
Woodrow gives contradictory infallibility from Pope histories.
NOTES:
CHAPTER TWELVE
1.Chiniquy, 'The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional,' p.138.
2.Cotterill, 'Medieval Italy,' p.331.
3.Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, p.774.
4.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.8, pp.425, art. "John X, Pope."
5.Chiniquy, 'The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional,' p.138.
6.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.8, p.426, art. "John XI."
7.Ibid., p.427, art. "John XII."
8.Liber Pontificalis, vol.2, p.246.
9.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.2, p.661,662, art."Boniface VII"
10.Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, p.775.
11.Ibid.
12.The Catholic Encyclopedia,vol.2,pp.668,668,art."Boniface VIII"
13.Ibid., p.670.
14.History of the Church Councils, Bk.40, art.697.
15.The Catholic Encyclopedia. vol.4, p.435, art. "Councils."
16.Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, p.778.
17.Chiniquy,'The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional,'p.139.
18.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation,' p.10.
19.Sacrorum Concilioriurn, vol.27, p.663.
20.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation,'p.10.
21.Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, p.779.
22.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation,' p.13.
23.Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, p.779.
24.Ibid.
25.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.8, p.19, art. "Innocent VIII."
26.D'Aubigne, 'History of the Reformation,' p.11.
27.Chiniquy,'The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional', p.139.
28.Diarium, vol.3, p.167.
29.Life - July 5, 1963.
30.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.9, pp.162,163, art. "Leo X."
31.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, p. 344.
32.D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation,' p.59.
33.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.8, p.407, art. "Joan, Popess."
34.Ibid., p.408.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
1.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.796, art. "Infallibility."
2.Ibid., vol.14, p.316, art. "Strossmayer."
3.Ibid., vol.6, p.141, art. "Formosus."
4.Ibid.
.................
Weeelllll....coming to modern times. It is a noted and recorded
FACT the Roman Catholic Church with many of its leaders DID
NOTHING (and in some situations, even worked with) AGAINST HITLER
and his kin, during the second World War. This is not to say that
SOME individual Catholics in "office" or lay members stood by and
let Hitler and his men do what they did, without resisting or
helping the innocent. But in the main, the TOP ones did little to
resist the evil of Hitler. The present Pope (in 2003 when this is
being presented to this Website) finally admitted such to the
Jews, and apologized, asking forgiveness from them and the world.
Then for you who go back to the 80s or 70s or before (I go back
to 1961 to 1972) as part of the Worldwide Church of God, under
Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong, and have come to
see what went on and how that church organization developed
(especially from the 70s onward), what you have read about the
evils or sex sins - inner fightings at the "top level" - proud
infallibleness, hard-handed rulership - lavish physical living -
abuse of brethren - will sadly all come to mind. For as Solomon
said, "There is nothing new under the sun."
As is all admitted and recorded by the Catholic Encyclopedia, the
gross sins of some of the Popes down through the centuries can
hardly uphold the papal office and succession as "God's true
Eldership from the apostle Peter" - Keith Hunt
.............
TO BE CONTINUED
Babylon Mysteries Drunk with the Blood of the Saints! by
R. Woodrow
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE INHUMAN INQUISITION
SO OPENLY CORRUPT did the fallen church become in the Middle
Ages, we can readily understand why in many places men rose up in
protest. Many were those noble souls who rejected the false
claims of the Pope, looking instead to the Lord Jesus for
salvation and truth. These were called "heretics" and were
bitterly persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the documents that ordered such persecutions was the
inhuman "Ad exstirpanda" issued by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. This
document stated that heretics were to be "crushed like venomous
snakes." It formally approved the use of torture. Civil
authorities were ordered to burn heretics.
"The aforesaid Bull 'Ad exstirpanda' remained thenceforth a
fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by
several Popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68),
Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The
civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the Popes, under
pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that
condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted
that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person
excommunicated did not free himself from the excommunication
within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to
be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected
heresy."1
Men pondered long in those days on how they could devise
methods that would produce the most torture and pain. One of the
most popular methods was the use of the rack, a long table on
which the accused was tied by the hands and feet, back down, and
stretched by rope and windlass. This process dislocated joints
and caused great pain.
Heavy pincers were used to tear out fingernails or were
applied red-hot to sensitive parts of the body. Rollers with
sharp knife blades and spikes were used, over which the heretics
were rolled back and forth. There was the thumbscrew, an
instrument made for disarticulating fingers and "Spanish boots"
which were used to crush the legs and feet. The "iron virgin" was
a hollow instrument the size and figure of a woman. Knives were
arranged in such a way and under such pressure that the accused
were lacerated in its deadly embrace. This torture device was
sprayed with "holy water" and inscribed with the Latin words
meaning, "Glory be only to God" 2
Victims after being stripped of their clothing had their
arms tied behind their backs with a hard cord. Weights were
attached to their feet. The action of a pulley suspended them in
mid-air or dropped and raised them with a jerk, dislocating
joints of the body. While such torture was being employed,
priests holding up crosses would attempt to get the heretics to
recant.
Ridpath's History of the World includes an illustration of
the work of the Inquisition in the Netherlands. Twenty-one
Protestants are hanging from the tree. A man on a ladder is about
to be hanged, below him is a priest holding a cross.3
"In the year 1554 Francis Gamba, a Lombard, of the Protestant
persuasion, was apprehended and condemned to death by the
sentence of Milan. At the place of execution, a monk presented a
cross to him, to whom Gamba said, 'My mind is so full of the real
merits and goodness of Christ that I want not a piece of
senseless stick to put me in mind of Him.' For this expression
his tongue was bored through and he was afterwards burned."4
Some who rejected the teachings of the Roman church had
molten lead poured into their ears and mouths. Eyes were gouged
out and others were cruelly beaten with whips. Some were forced
to jump from cliffs onto long spikes fixed below, where,
quivering from pain, they slowly died. Others were choked to
death with mangled pieces of their own bodies, with urine, or
excrement. At night, the victims of the Inquisition were chained
closely to the floor or wall where they were a helpless prey to
the rats and vermin that populated those bloody torture chambers.
The religious intolerance that prompted the Inquisition
caused wars which involved entire cities. In 1209 the city of
Beziers was taken by men who have been promised by the Pope that
by engaging in the crusade against heretics they would at death
bypass purgatory and immediately enter heaven. Sixty thousand, it
is reported, in this city perished by the sword while blood
flowed in the streets. At Lavaur in 1211 the governor was hanged
on a gibbet and his wife thrown into a well and crushed with
stones. Four hundred people in this town were burned alive. The
crusaders attended high mass in the morning, then proceeded to
take other towns of the area. In this siege, it is estimated that
100,000 Albigenses (Protestants) fell in one day. Their bodies
were heaped together and burned.
At the massacre of Merindol, five hundred women were locked
in a barn which was set on fire. If any leaped from windows, they
were received on the points of spears. Women were openly and
pitifully violated. Children were murdered before their parents
who were powerless to protect them. Some people were hurled from
cliffs or stripped of clothing and dragged through the streets.
Similar methods were used in the massacre of Orange in 1562. The
Italian army was sent by Pope Pius IV and commanded to slay men,
women, and children. The command was carried out with terrible
cruelty, the people being exposed to shame and torture of every
description.
Ten thousand Huguenots (Protestants) were killed in the
bloody massacre in Paris on "St.Bartholomew's Day", 1572. The
French king went to mass to return solemn thanks that so many
heretics were slain. The papal court received the news with great
rejoicing and Pope Gregory XIII, in grand procession, went to the
Church of St.Louis to give thanks! He ordered the papal mint to
make coins commemorating this event. The coins showed an angel
with sword in one hand and a cross in the other, before whom a
band of Huguenots, with horror on their faces, were fleeing. The
words 'Ugonottorum Stranges 1572' which signify "The slaughter of
the Huguenots, 1572", appeared on the coins.
An illustration from Ridpath's History of the World, shows
the work of the Inquisition in Holland. A Protestant man is
hanging by his feet in stocks. The fire is heating a poker to
brand him and blind his eyes.5
Some of the Popes that today are acclaimed as "great" by the
Romish church lived and thrived during those days. Why didn't
they open the dungeon doors and quench the murderous fires that
blackened the skies of Europe for centuries? If the selling of
indulgences, or people worshipping statues as idols, or Popes
living in immorality can be explained as "abuses" or excused
because these things were done contrary to the official laws of
the church, what can be said about the Inquisition? It cannot be
explained away as easily, for though sometimes torture was
carried out beyond what was actually prescribed, the fact remains
that the Inquisition was ordered by papal decree and confirmed by
Pope after Pope! Can any believe that such actions were
representative of Him who said to turn the cheek, to forgive our
enemies, and to do good to them that despitefully use us?
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
"LORD'S OVER GOD'S HERITAGE"
THE HIGHEST RANKING men of the Roman Catholic Church, next
to the Pope, are a group of "cardinals." The Bible says that
Christ placed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and
teachers in his church (Eph. 4:11). But we never find any
indication that he ordained a group of cardinals. To the
contrary, the original cardinals were a group of leading priests
in the ancient pagan religion of Rome - long before the Christian
Era. A booklet published by the Knights of Columbus, "This is the
Catholic Church," explains: "In ancient times the cardinals were
the chief clergy of Rome - the word is derived from the Latin
word 'cardo,' - 'hinge', and thus referred to those who were the
pivotal members of the clergy."1
But why were these priests of ancient Rome linked with the
word "hinge"? They were, evidently, the priests of Janus, the
pagan god of doors and hinges! Janus was referred to as "the god
of beginnings" - thus January, the beginning month of our Roman
calendar, comes from his name. As god of doors, he was their
protector or caretaker. Even today, the keeper of the doors is
called a janitor, a word from the name Janus!
Janus was known as "the opener and shutter."2
Because he was worshipped as such in Asia Minor, we can
better understand the words of Jesus to the church at
Philadelphia: "These things saith he that is holy, he that is
true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man
shutteth: and shutteth, and no man openeth ... I have set before
you an open door" (Rev. 3:7,8). The pagan god Janus was a
counterfeit; Jesus was the true opener and shutter!
"The college of Cardinals, with the Pope at its head", writes
Hislop, "is just the counterpart of the pagan college of
Pontiffs, with its Pontifex Maximus, or Sovereign Pontiff, which
is known to have been framed on the model of the grand original
Council of Pontiffs at Babylon!"3
When paganism and Christianity were mixed together, the
cardinals, priests of the hinge, that had served in pagan Rome,
eventually found a place in papal Rome.
The garments worn by the cardinals of the Catholic Church
are red. Cardinal birds, cardinal flowers, and cardinal priests
are all linked together by the color red. The Bible mentions
certain princes of Babylon who dressed in red garments: "...men
portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed
with vermillion" - bright red - "girded with girdles upon the
loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them
princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of
Chaldea" (Ezekiel 23:14,15).
The harlot symbolizing Babylonish religion was dressed in
scarlet - red garments (Rev. 17:4). From ancient times, the color
red or scarlet has been associated with sin. Isaiah, in his day,
said: "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as
snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool"
(Isaiah 1:18). Adultery is sometimes referred to as the scarlet
sin. The color red is associated with prostitution, as in the
expression "red-light district."
In view of these things, it does not seem unfair to question
why red would be used for the garments of the highest ranking men
in the Romish church. We are not saying it is wrong to wear red,
yet does it not seem like a curious custom for cardinals? Are we
to suppose such garments were worn by the apostles? Or is it more
likely that the red garments of the cardinals were copied from
those worn by priests of pagan Rome?
The priests of the hinge in pagan days were known as the
"flamens." The word is taken from 'flare,' meaning one who blows
or kindles the sacred fire.4
They were the keepers of the holy flame which they fanned
with the mystic fan of Bacchus. Like the color of the fire they
tended, their garments were flame color - red. They were servants
of the pontifex maximus in pagan days and the cardinals today are
the servants of the Pope who also claims the title pontifex
maximus. The flamens were divided into three distinct groups and
so are the cardinals - Cardinal-bishops, Cardinal-priests, and
Cardinal-deacons.
Next in authority under the Pope and the cardinals are the
bishops of the Catholic Church. Unlike the titles "pope" and
"cardinal", the Bible does mention bishops. Like the word
"saints", however, the word "bishop" has been commonly
misunderstood. Many think of a bishop as a minister of superior
rank, having authority over a group of other ministers and
churches. This idea is reflected in the word "cathedral", which
comes from cathedra, meaning "throne." A cathedral, unlike other
churches, is the one in which the throne of the bishop is
located.
But turning to the Bible, all ministers are called bishops -
not just ministers of certain cities. Paul instructed Titus to
"ordain elders in every city" (Titus 1:5), and then went on to
speak of these elders as bishops (verse 7). When Paul instructed
"the elders" of Ephesus, he said: "Take heed unto yourselves, and
to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers
(bishops), to feed (pastor) the church of God" (Acts 20:17,28).
The word translated "overseers" is the same word that is
elsewhere translated bishops. The word "feed" means the same as
the word translated pastor. These ministers were referred to as
elders, bishops, overseers, and pastors - all of these
expressions referring to exactly the same office. Plainly enough,
a bishop - in the Scriptures was not a minister of a large city
who sat on a throne and exercised authority over a group of other
ministers. Each church had its elders and these elders were
bishops! This was understood by Martin Luther. "But as for the
bishops that we now have", he remarked, "of these the Scriptures
know nothing; they were instituted ... so that one might rule
over many ministers."5
Even before the New Testament was completed, it was needful
to give warnings about the doctrine of the Nicolaitines (Rev.
2:6). According to Scofield, the word "Nicolaitines" comes from
'nikao,' "to conquer", and 'laos,' "laity", which, if correct,
"refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order,
or 'clergy', which later divided an equal brotherhood (Mt. 23:8),
into 'priests' and 'laity'."6
The word "priest" in a very real sense belongs to every
Christian believer - not just ecclesiastical leaders. Peter
instructed ministers not to be "lords over God's heritage" (1
Peter 5:1-3). The word translated "heritage" is 'kleeron' and
means "clergy"! As The Matthew Henry Commentary explains, all the
children of God are given the "title of God's heritage or clergy
... the word is never restrained in the New Testament to the
ministers of religion only."
In rejecting an artificial division between "clergy" and
"laity", this is not to say that ministers should not receive
proper respect and honor, "especially they who labor in the word"
(1 Tim.5:17). But because of this division, too often people of a
congregation are prone to place all responsibility for the work
of God upon the minister. Actually God has a ministry for all of
his people. This is not to say that all have a pulpit ministry! -
but even giving a cup of cold water is not without its purpose
and reward (Matt.10:42). It would be well for each of us to
pray,"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts 9:6).
In the New Testament, the full work of a church was not
placed on one individual. Churches were commonly pastored by a
plurality of elders, as numerous scriptures show. "They ordained
elders (plural) in every church" (Acts 14:19-23) and in "every
city" (Titus 1:5). Expressions such as "the elders (plural) of
the church" are commonly used (Acts 20:17; James 5:14).
All who have been washed from their sins by the blood of Christ
are "priests unto God" and are "a royal priesthood" (Rev. 1:6; 1
Peter 2:9). The priesthood of all believers is clearly the New
Testament position. But as men exalted themselves as "lords over
God's heritage", people were taught that they needed a priest to
whom they could tell their sins, a priest must sprinkle them, a
priest must give them the last rites, a priest must say masses
for them, etc. They were taught to depend upon a human priest,
while the true high priest, the Lord Jesus, was obscured from
their view by a dark cloud of man-made traditions.
Unlike Elihu who did not want to "give flattering titles
unto man" (Job 32:21), those who exalted themselves as "lords"
over the people began to take unto themselves titles which were
unscriptural, and - in some cases - titles that should belong
only to God! As a warning against this practice, Jesus said,
"Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father
which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your
Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be
your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased;
and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Matt.
23:9-12).
It is difficult to understand how a church claiming to have
Christ as its founder - after a few centuries - would begin to
use the very titles that he said NOT to use! Nevertheless, the
bishop of Rome began to be called by the title "pope", which is
only a variation of the word "father." The priests of Catholicism
are called "father." We will remember that one of the leading
branches of the "Mysteries" that came to Rome in the early days
was Mithraism. In this religion, those who presided over the
sacred ceremonies were called "fathers."7
An article on Mithraism in The Catholic Encyclopedia says,
"The fathers (used here as a religious title) conducted the
worship. The chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always
lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patrum'."8
Now if the pagans in Rome called their priests by the title
"father", and if Christ said to call no man "father", from what
source did the Roman Catholic custom of calling a priest by this
title come - from Christ or paganism?
Even the Bible gives an example of a pagan priest being
called "father." A man by the name of Micah said to a young
Levite, "Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest"
(Judges 17:10). Micah was a grown man with a son of his own; the
Levite was "a young man." The title "father" was obviously used
in a religious sense, as a priestly designation. Micah wanted him
to be a father - priest in his "house of gods." This was a type
of Catholicism, for while the young priest claimed to speak the
word of the "LORD" (Judges 18:6), the worship was clearly mixed
with idols and paganism.
The Roman Catholic Church uses the title "Monsignor" which
means "My Lord." It is somewhat of a general title, The Catholic
Encyclopedia explains, and can be properly used in addressing
several of the higher church leaders. "Instead of addressing
patriarchs as 'Vostra Beautitudine', archbishops as 'Your Grace',
bishops as 'My Lord', abbots as 'Gracious Lord', one may without
any breach of etiquette salute all equally as Monsignor."9
One of the meanings of "arch" is master. Using titles such
as arch-priest, arch-bishop, arch-deacon, is like saying master-
priest, etc. The superior of the order of Dominicans is called
"master general." We need only to cite, again, the words of
Christ which are in contrast to such titles: "Neither be ye
called masters: for one is your master, even Christ."
Even the title "Reverend", Biblically speaking, is applied
only to God. It appears one time in the Bible: "Holy and reverend
is his name" (Psalms 111:9). The word "reverend" comes from the
Latin 'revere' and was first applied to the English clergy as a
title of respect during the fifteenth century. Variations of this
title are these: The Reverend, The Very Reverend, The Most
Reverend, and The Right Reverend.
When Jesus spoke against flattering titles, the basic
thought was that of humility and equality among his disciples.
Should we not, then, reject the supposed authority of those high
offices in which men seek to make themselves "lords over God's
heritage"? And instead of men receiving glory, should not all the
glory be given to God?
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.8, p.34.
2. Smith, 'Man and His Gods,' p.286.
3. Ridpath's History of the World, vol.5, p.304.
4. Fox's Book of Martyrs, p.103.
5. Ridpath's History of the World, vol.5, p.297.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
1. Ritter, 'This is the Catholic Church,' booklet 50, p.38.
2. Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.210.
3. Ibid., p.206.
4. Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature p.675.
5. Luther, 'To the German Nobility,' p.317.
6. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, p.1332.
7. Cumont, 'The Mysteries of Mithra,' p.167.
8. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.10, p.403, art. "Mithraism."
9. Ibid., p.510, art. "Monsignor."
..................
Truly the "Dark Ages" were named the Dark Ages correctly, not
only was there dark evil practices sanctioned and perpetrated by
the Roman Catholic church, but many of its theological teachings
and ideas (like a flat earth) were taught as the truths of God.
Even in this so-called enlightened age the main part of the
Catholic church and its Pope and high ranking leaders, stood by
while Hitler and his demonic ideas were brought into reality
before and during World-War Two.
No wonder God calls the Babylon Whore Woman in Revelation as
being DRUNK on the BLOOD of the saints.
One day her and her daughters and political governments will face
the anger and revenge of Almighty God. His saints who cry out in
symbolic form, for revenge (Revelation 6:9-11) will be speedily
granted their wish, but not before this scarlet Whore who rides
the end-time Beast under the power of Satan the Devil, AGAIN,
takes the lives of millions and drinks their blood so to speak.
You need to study the studies on this Website devoted to Bible
Prophecy and come to see what is going to take place on this
earth (if the nations do not repent - and there is little chance
of that happening) in the last THREE and ONE HALF years of this
age.
It is NOT at all pleasant, but if you make your calling and
election SURE, if you endure to the END as Jesus and Peter
taught, THEN you can be in the resurrection at the coming of
Jesus, and with Him, bring salvation and truth, joy, peace, and
happiness, to all nations on earth for one thousand years.
We continue to pray, "THY KINGDOM come, Thy WILL be DONE on earth
as it is in heaven" - Keith Hunt
TO BE CONTINUED
Babylon Mysteries An un-married priesthood by
Ralph Woodrow
AN UNMARRIED PRIESTHOOD
THE SPIRIT SPEAKETH expressly, that in the latter times,
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy;
having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO
MARRY..." (1 Tim.4:1-3).
In this passage, Paul warned that a departure from the true
faith would occur in later or latter times. "This does not
necessarily imply the last ages of the world", writes Adam Clarke
in his noted commentary, "but any times consequent to those in
which the Church then lived."1 Actually, this departure from the
faith, as those who know history understand, took place back in
the early centuries.
The first Christians recognized the worship of pagan gods as
the worship of devils (1 Cor.10:19,21). It follows, then, that
Paul's warning about "doctrines of devils" could certainly refer
to the teachings of the pagan mysteries. He made special mention
of the doctrine of "forbidding to marry." In the mystery
religion, this doctrine did not apply to all people. It was,
instead, a doctrine of priestly celibacy. Such unmarried priests,
Hislop points out, were members of the higher orders of the
priesthood of the queen Semiramis. "Strange as it may seem, yet
the voice of antiquity assigns to the abandoned queen the
invention of clerical celibacy, and that in its most stringent
form."2
Not all nations to which the mystery religion spread
required priestly celibacy, as in Egypt where priests were
allowed to marry. But, "every scholar knows that when the worship
of Cybele, the Babylonian goddess, was introduced into Pagan
Rome, it was introduced in its primitive form, with its celibate
clergy."3
Instead of the doctrine of "forbidding to marry" promoting
purity, however, the excesses committed by the celibate priests
of pagan Rome were so bad that the Senate felt they should be
expelled from the Roman republic. Later, after priestly celibacy
became established in papal Rome, similar problems developed.
"When Pope Paul V sought the suppression of the licensed brothels
in the 'Holy City', the Roman Senate petitioned against his
carrying his design into effect, on the ground that the existence
of such places was the only means of hindering the priests from
seducing their wives and daughters."4
Rome, in those days, was a "holy city" in name only. Reports
estimate that there were about 6,000 prostitutes in this city
with a population not exceeding 100,000.5
Historians tell us that "all the ecclesiastics had
mistresses, and all the convents of the Capitol were houses of
bad fame."6
A fish pond at Rome which was situated near a convent was
drained by order of Pope Gregory. At the bottom were found over
6,000 infant skulls.
Cardinal Peter D'Ailly said he dared not describe the
immorality of the nunneries, and that "taking the veil" was
simply another mode of becoming a public prostitute. Violations
were so bad in the ninth century that St.Theodore Studita forbade
even female animals on monastery property!
In the year 1477, night dances and orgies were held in the
Catholic cloister at Kercheim that are described in history as
being worse than those to be seen in the public houses of
prostitution.7
Priests came to be known as "the husbands of all the women."
Albert the Magnificent, Archbishop of Hamburg, exhorted his
priests: "Si non caste, tamen caste" (If you can't be chaste, at
least be careful). Another German bishop began to charge the
priests in his district a tax for each female they kept and each
child that was born. He discovered there were eleven thousand
women kept by the clergymen of his diocese.8
"The Catholic Encyclopedia" says the tendency of some to rake
these scandals together and exaggerate details "is at least as
marked as the tendency on the part of the Church's apologists to
ignore these uncomfortable pages of history altogether"!9...
There is no rule in the Bible that requires a minister to be
unmarried. The apostles were married (1 Cor.9:5) and a bishop
was to be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim.3:2). Even The
Catholic Encyclopedia says, "We do not find in the New Testament
any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the
apostles or those whom they ordained."11
The doctrine of "forbidding to marry" developed only
gradually within the Catholic church. When the celibacy doctrine
first began to be taught, many of the priests were married men.
There was some question, though, if a priest whose wife died
should marry again.
A rule established at the Council of Neo-Caesarea in 315
"absolutely forbids a priest to contract a new marriage under the
pain of desposition." Later, "at a Roman council held by Pope
Siricius in 386 an edict was passed forbidding priests and
deacons to have conjugal intercourse with their wives and the
Pope took steps to have the decree enforced in Spain and other
parts of Christendom."l2
Woodrow gives more examples of Roman Catholic errors of teaching.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
1.Clarke's Commentary, vol.6, p.601.
2.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.219.
3.Ibid., p.220.
4.Ibid.
5.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation,' p.21.
6.D'Aubigne, 'History of the Reformation,' p. 11.
7.Flick, 'The Decline of the Medieval Church,' p.295.
8.D'Aubigne, 'History of the Reformation,' p.11.
9.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.3, p.483, art. "Celibacy."
10.Ibid., pp.483,485.
11.Ibid., p.481.
12.Ibid., p.484.
13.Ibid., vol.11, p.625, art. "Penance."
14.Ibid.
15.Saggs, 'The Greatness that was Babylon,' p.268.
16.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' pp.9,10.
17.Fausset's Bible Encyclopedia, p.291, art. "High places."
18.Clarke's Commentary, vol.2, p.562.
19.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.14, p.779, art. "Tonsure."
20.Ibid.
21.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.222.
....................
Woodrow does not address and answer the section in the Gospels
where Jesus told His disciples that "whoever sins you remit shall
be remitted, and whoever sins you retain, shall be retained"
(John 20:23).
I will answer the question that you may have regarding this
verse.
Is there ever a time when a disciple of Jesus has the right to
remit or retain a persons sins?
Yes, as surprising as it may sound to some of you, there is such
a time. If fact two times specifically.
The first is when a disciple of Christ is guiding and counselling
someone to "baptism" - such a disciple must make a spiritual
judgment as to the heart and mind of they who are wanting to be
baptized by them. Baptism must be accompanied before-hand with
"repentance" and repentance must involve the subject of sin, what
it is and what to repent of. All the details of these two subject
(repentance and baptism) are covered in depth on this Website.
Someone baptizing another must make a judgment call as to the
heart and mindset of the one wanting to be baptized. It may be
possible the motive for wanting baptism is not what it should be,
and should be refused, hence a retaining of sin in that sense,
towards that person. Then on the other hand, it may be judged the
heart and mind is correct towards God and sin, and so the baptism
goes ahead, and sins are remitted.
The second instance of disciples remitting or retaining sins, is
under the subject of "church disfellowship" which I have covered
in-depth in another study. I refer the reader to that study, for
the full answer.
Some may still want to argue the point of a disciple of Jesus
having the power and right to remit or retain sins. But the fact
is that verse and that instruction was said by Jesus, to His
disciples, hence there MUST be a time WHEN this is within the
right and power of a disciple of Christ.
I have given you how that can be, and it is NOT at all the
"confessional" doctrine of the Roman Catholic church.
Then there is the recent LARGE scandal (2002-03) in the Roman
Catholic church with sexual abuse on boys by some of the "clergy"
of that church organization. It went all the way to the Pope who
had to speak out about it. It has caused meetings of bishops etc.
to try and figure out what can be done to prevent all this, but
at this time, a married priesthood is not being considered. The
doctrine of an un-married priesthood is still firmly entrenched
in the Roman Catholic church - Keith Hunt.
TO BE CONTINUED
Babylon Mysteries The Mysterious Mass by
Ralph Woodrow
THE MASS
DO PRIESTS HAVE power to change the elements of bread and
wine into the flesh and blood of Christ during the mass ritual?
Is this belief founded on the Scriptures?
The Catholic position is summed up in the following words
from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are
changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called
transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the
substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire
substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the
entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species
or outward semblance of bread and wine alone remaining."1
Support for this belief is sought in the words of Jesus when
he said of the bread he had blessed, "Take eat; this is my body"
and of the cup, "Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood" (Matt.
26:26-28). But forcing a literal meaning on these words creates
numerous problems of interpretation and tends to overlook the
fact that the Bible commonly uses figurative expressions.
When some of David's men risked their lives to bring him
water from Bethlehem, he refused it, saying, "Is not this the
blood of men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (2 Sam.
23:17). The Bible speaks of Jesus as a "door", "vine", and "rock"
(John 10:9; 15:5; 1 Cor.10:4). All recognize these statements are
to be understood in a figurative sense. We believe that such is
also true of Christ's statement "this is my body ... this is my
blood." The bread and wine are symbols of his body and blood.
This does not detract at all from the reality of his
presence within an assembly of believers, for he promised, "Where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them" (Matt.18:20). To reject the idea that he becomes
literally present in pieces of bread or inside a cup of wine is
not to reject that he is present spiritually among believers!
After Jesus "blessed" the elements, they were not changed
into his literal flesh and blood, for he (literally) was still
there. He had not vanished away to appear in the form of bread
and wine. After he had blessed the cup, he still called it "the
fruit of the vine" not literal blood (Matt.26:29). Since Jesus
drank from the cup also, did he drink his own blood? If the wine
became actual blood, to drink it would have been forbidden by the
Bible (Deut.12:16; Acts 15:20).
There is no evidence that any change comes to the elements
through the Romish ritual. They have the same taste, color,
smell, weight, and dimensions. The bread still looks like bread,
tastes like bread, smells like bread, and feels like bread. But
in the Catholic mind, it is the flesh of God. The wine still
looks like wine, tastes like wine, smells like wine, and if one
drank enough, it would make him drunk like wine! But this is
believed to be the blood of God. When the priest blesses the
bread and wine, he says the Latin words, 'Hoc est corpus meus.'
In view of the fact that no change takes place, we can understand
how the expression "hocus-pocus" originated with these words.2
The poem is not included to be unkind or to ridicule what
many sincere people consider a very sacred ceremony. In spite of
its crudeness, the poem does make a point.
A ROMAN MIRACLE
A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed; To love
all Bible truths and tales, quite early she'd been bred.
It sorely grieved her husband's heart that she would not
comply, And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics
deny.
So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good
Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood. The
Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive; And
transubstantiation, too, she'd never dare believe.
He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale. "My
wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail; For all
your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion, To really
work a miracle may lead to her conversion."
The priest went with the gentleman - he thought to gain a
prize. He said, "I will convert her, sir, and open both her
eyes."
So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,
"The priest has come to dine with us!" "He's welcome," she
replied.
And when, at last, the meal was o'er, the priest at once
began, To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of
man;
The greatness of our Savior's love, which Christians can't
deny, To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.
"I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;
The sacramental miracle will stop you soul's decline."
"I'll bake the bread," the lady said. "You may," he did
reply, "And when you've seen this miracle, convinced you'll
be, say I"
The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did
bless. The lady asked, "Sir, is it changed?" The priest
answered, "Yes,
It's changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and
blood; Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into
God!"
So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did
prepare. The lady said unto the priest, "I warn you to take
care,
For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,
But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really
matter."
The priest was struck real dumb - he looked as pale as
death.
The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for
breath. "Bring me my horse!" the priest cried, "This is a
cursed home!" The lady replied, "Begone; tis you who shares
the curse of Rome."
The husband, too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say.
At length he spoke, "My dear," said he, "the priest has run
away; To gulp such mummery and tripe, I'm not for sure,
quite able; I'll go with you and we'll renounce this Roman
Catholic fable."
Author Unknown
The learned Council of Trent proclaimed that the belief in
transubstantion was essential to salvation and pronounced curses
on any who would deny it. The Council ordered pastors to explain
that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones,
and nerves as a part of Christ, "but also a WHOLE CHRIST.3
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The dogma of the totality
of the Real Presence means that in each individual species the
whole Christ, flesh and blood, body and soul, Divinity and
humanity, is really present."4
The piece of bread having become "Christ," it is believed
that in offering it up, the priest sacrifices Christ. A curse was
pronounced by the Council of Trent on any who believed otherwise.
"If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is
not offered to God ... let him be anathema."5
In Catholic belief, this "sacrifice" is a renewal of the
sacrifice of the cross. "Christ ... commanded that his bloody
sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody
sacrifice of his Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple
elements of bread and wine."6
Because the elements are changed into Christ, he "is present
in our churches not only in a spiritual manner but really, truly,
and substantially as the victim of a sacrifice."7
Though the ritual has been carried out millions of times,
attempts are made to explain that it is the same sacrifice as
Calvary because the victim in each case is Jesus Christ.8
The very idea of Christ "flesh and blood, body and soul,
Divinity and humanity" - being offered repeatedly as a "renewal"
of the sacrifice of the cross, stands in sharp contrast to the
words of Jesus on the cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The
Old Testament sacrifices had to be continually offered because
none of them was the perfect sacrifice. But now "we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE
for all. For every priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
but this man (Christ), after he had offered ONE sacrifice for
sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God - for by ONE
offering he perfected for ever them that are sanctified "
(Heb.10:10-14).
Catholic doctrine says the sacrifice of Christ on the cross
should "be daily renewed", but the New Testament sets the idea of
"daily sacrifices" in contrast to the ONE sacrifice of Christ. He
was not to be offered often, for "as it is appointed unto men
once to die ... so Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of
many" (Heb.9:25-28). In view of this, those who believe the
sacrifice of the cross should be continually renewed in the Mass,
in a sense, "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put
him to an open shame" (Heb.6:6).
After the bread has been changed into "Christ" by the
priest, it is placed on a monstrance in the center of a sunburst
design. Before the monstrance Catholics will bow and worship the
little wafer as God! This practice, in our opinion, is similar to
the practices of heathen tribes which worship fetishes.
Is it scriptural? Notice what The Catholic Encyclopedia
says:
"In the absence of Scriptural proof, the Church finds a warrant
for, Monstrance and a propriety in, rendering Divine worship to
the Blessed Sacrament in the most ancient and constant
tradition..."
This reasoning brings to mind the words of Jesus, "...making
the word of God of none effect through your tradition" (Mark
7:13).
Adopting the idea that the elements of the Lord's Supper
become the literal flesh and blood of Christ was not without its
problems. Tertullian tells us that priests took great care that
no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt! Even a
crumb was believed to contain a whole Christ. In the Middle Ages,
there were serious discussions as to what should be done if a
person were to vomit after receiving communion or a dog or mouse
were by chance to eat God's body! At the Council of Constance, it
was argued whether a man who spilled some of the blood of Christ
on his beard should have his beard burned, or if the beard and
the man should be destroyed by burning. It is admitted on all
sides that numerous strange doctrines accompanied the idea of
transubstantiation.
In the New Testament church it is evident that Christians
partook of both the bread and the fruit of the vine as emblems of
Christ's death (1 Cor.11:28). This The Catholic Encyclopedia
admits. "It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the
twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public
Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered an received
under both kinds," a fact "clearly beyond dispute."10
But, after all these centuries, the Roman Catholic Church
began to hold back the cup from the people, serving them only the
bread. The priest drank the wine. One argument was that someone
might spill the blood of Christ. But was it not possible that the
early disciples could have spilled the cup? Christ did not
withhold it from them on this basis! Serving only half of what
Jesus had instituted called for certain "explanations." It was
explained that "communion under one kind", as it was called, was
just as valid as taking both. The people would not be deprived of
any "grace necessary for salvation" and that "Christ is really
present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul
and Divinity, under either species alone ... holy mother the
Church ... has approved the custom of communicating under one
kind ... Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not
obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly for
bidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest"11
After many centuries, this law has now been relaxed. Some
Catholics are allowed to partake of both bread and cup, but
customs vary from place to place.
Did the idea of transubstantiation begin with Christ? The
historian Durant tells us that the belief in transubstantiation
as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church is "one of the oldest
ceremonies of primitive religion."12
In the scholarly work "Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion
and Ethics," many pages are devoted to an article "Eating the
god." In these pages, abundant evidence is given of
transubstantiation rites among many nations, tribes, and
religions. Such rites were known in pagan Rome as evidenced from
Cicero's rhetorical question about the corn of Ceres and the wine
of Bacchus. In Mithraism, a sacred meal of bread and wine was
celebrated. "Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred
banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and
amongst all peoples," says The Catholic Encyclopedia.13
In Egypt a cake was consecrated by a priest and was supposed
to become the flesh of Osiris. This was then eaten and wine was
taken as a part of the rite.14
Even in Mexico and Central America, among those who had
never heard of Christ, the belief in eating the flesh of a god
was found. When Catholic missionaries first landed there, they
were surprised "when they witnessed a religious rite which
reminded them of communion ... an image made of flour ... after
consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate
it ... declaring it was the flesh of the deity.15
Hislop suggests that the idea of eating the flesh of a god
was of cannibalistic inception. Since heathen priests ate a
portion of all sacrifices, in cases of human sacrifice, priests
of Baal were required to eat human flesh. Thus "Cahna-Bal", that
is, "priest of Baal," has provided the basis for our modern word
"cannibal."l6
During Mass, members of the Romish church in good standing
may come forward and kneel before the priest who places a piece
of bread in their mouths which has become a "Christ." This piece
of bread is called "host", from a Latin word originally meaning
"victim" or "sacrifice."l7
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the host "has been the
object of a great many miracles" including the bread being
turned to stone and hosts which have bled and continued to
bleed.18
Hosts are made in a round shape, this form first being
mentioned by St.Epiphanius in the fourth century.19
But when Jesus instituted the memorial supper, he simply
took bread and brake it. Bread does not break into round
pieces! Breaking the bread actually represents the body of Jesus
which was broken for us by the cruel beatings and stripes. But
this symbolism is not carried out by serving a round, disk shaped
wafer completely whole.
If the use of a round wafer is without scriptural basis, is
it possible that we are faced with another example of pagan
influence? Hislop says, "The 'round' wafer, whose 'roundness' is
so important an element in the Romish Mystery, is only another
symbol of Baal, or the sun."20
We know that round cakes were used in the ancient
mysteries of Egypt. "The thin, round cake occurs on all
altars."21
In the mystery religion of Mithraism, the higher initiates
of the system received a small round cake or wafer of unleavened
bread which symbolized the solar disk, 22 as did their round
tonsure.
In 1854 an ancient temple was discovered in Egypt with
inscriptions that show little round cakes on an altar. Above the
altar is a large image of the sun.23 A similar sun-symbol was
used above the altar of a temple near the town of Babain, in
upper Egypt, where there is a representation of the sun, before
which two priests are shown worshipping.
This use of the sun-image above the "altar" was not limited
to Egypt. Even in far away Peru, this same image was known and
worshipped.24
If there is any doubt that the shape of the host was
influenced by sun-worship, one may simply compare the sun-image
before which the heathen bowed with the monstrance sun-image - in
which the host is placed as a "sun" and before which Catholics
bow -and a striking similarity will immediately be seen.
Even among the Israelites, when they fell into Baal worship,
sun-images were set up above their altars! But during the reign
of Josiah, these images were torn down: "And they brake down the
altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images (margin, sun-
images) that were on high above them" (2 Chron.34:4). An
accompanying old woodcut illustrates some of the strange images
that they worshipped, including two sun-images at the top of
columns.
The photograph on the next page shows the altar of St.
Peter's and huge canopy (the baldachinum)-ninety-five feet high -
which is supported by four columns, twisted and slightly covered
by branches. At the top of the columns - "on high above" the most
important altar in Catholicism - are sun-images like those that
were used in pagan worship. High on the wall, is a huge and
elaborate golden sunburst image which, from the entrance of the
church, also appears "above" the altar. A large sun-image also
appears above the altar of the Church of the Gesu, Rome, and
hundreds of others. Interestingly enough, the great temple at
Babylon also featured a golden sun-image.25
Sometimes the circular sun-image is a stained glass window
above the altar or, as is very common, above the entrance of
churches. Some of these central circular windows are beautifully
decorated. Some are surrounded with sun rays. In Babylon there
were temples with images of the sun-god to face the rising sun
placed above the entries.26
An early Babylonian temple built by king Gudea featured such
an emblem of the sun-god over the entrance.27
It was a custom for Egyptian builders to place a solar disk
(sometimes with wings or other emblems) over the entrance of
their temples to honor the sun-god and drive away evil spirits.
We are not suggesting, of course, that the round designs in use
today convey the meanings they once did to those who went to
heathen temples. Nevertheless, the similarity seems significant.
The circular window that has been so commonly used above the
entrances of churches is sometimes called a "wheel" window. The
wheel design, as the wheel of a chariot, was believed by some of
the ancients to also be a sun symbol. They thought of the sun as
a great chariot driven by the sun-god who made his trip across
the heavens each day and passed through the underworld at night.
When the Israelites mixed the religion of Baal into their
worship, they had "chariots of the sun" - chariots dedicated to
the sun-god (2 Kings 23:4-11). An image in the form of a chariot
wheel is placed over the famous statue of Peter in St.Peter's. A
tablet now in a British museum shows one of the Babylonian kings
restoring a symbol of the sun-god in the temple of Bel. The
symbol is an eight pointed cross, like a spoked wheel. A similar
design marks the pavement of the circular court before St.
Peter's.
Romish pictures of Mary and the saints always feature a
circular sun-symbol disk around their heads. The Roman tonsure is
round. Round images are seen above the altars and entrances. The
monstrance in which the round host is placed often features a
sun-burst design. All of these uses of sun symbols may seem quite
insignificant. But when the over-all picture is seen, each
provides a clue to help solve the mystery of Babylon modern.
The round wafers of the Mass are often pictured as circles
marked with crosses. We can't help but notice how similar these
are to the round wafers seen in the drawing of an Assyrian
monument...
In this scene, one man is bowing before a priest-king and
beneath a sun-image. The second man from the right is bringing an
offering of round wafers marked with crosses!
When Jesus instituted the memorial supper, it was at night.
It was not at breakfast time, or at lunch time. The first
Christians partook of the Lord's supper at night, following the
example of Christ and the types of the Old Testament. But later
the Lord's supper came to be observed at a morning meeting.28
To what extent this may have been influenced by Mithraism,
we cannot say. We do know that the Mithraic rites were observed
early in the morning, being associated with the sun, with dawn.
For whatever reason, it is now a common custom among both
Catholic and Protestant churches to take the Lord's "supper" in
the morning.
A factor that may have encouraged the early morning Mass
within the Catholic church was the idea that a person should be
fasting before receiving communion. Obviously early morning was
an easier time to meet this requirement! But to require such
fasting cannot be solidly built on scripture, for Jesus had just
eaten when he instituted the memorial supper! On the other hand,
those who sought initiation in the Eleusinian mysteries were
first asked: "Are you fasting?" If their answer was negative,
initiation was denied.29
Fasting itself is, of course, a Biblical doctrine. But true
fasting must come from the heart and not merely because of a
man-made rule. Of such, God says, "When they fast, I will not
hear their cry" (Jer.14:12). The Pharisees were strict about
fasting on certain days, but neglected the weightier matters of
the law (Matt.6:16). Paul warned about certain commandments to
"abstain from meats" as being a mark of apostasy (1 Tim.4:3).
In commenting on the Mass and its elaborate ritualism,
Romanism and the Gospel says: "It is a spectacle of gorgeous
magnificence - lights, colors, vestments, music, incense, and
what has a strange psychological effect, a number of drilled
officiants performing a stately ritual in entire independence of
the worshippers. These are indeed spectators, not participants,
spectators like those who were present at a performance of the
ancient mystery cults."30
A noted work on Catholicism summarizes the mechanical
performance made by the priest during Mass: "He makes the sign of
the cross sixteen times; turns toward the congregation six times;
lifts his eyes to heaven eleven times; kisses the altar eight
times; folds his hands four times; strikes his breast ten times;
bows his head twenty-one times; genuflects eight times; bows his
shoulders seven times; blesses the altar with the sign of the
cross thirty times; lays his hands flat on the altar twenty-nine
times; prays secretly eleven times; prays aloud thirteen times;
takes the bread and wine and turns it into the body and blood of
Christ; covers and uncovers the chalice ten times; goes to and
fro twenty times."31
Adding to this complicated ritualism is the use of highly
colored robes, candles, bells, incense, music, and the showy
pageantry for which Romanism is known. What a contrast to the
simple memorial supper instituted by Christ!
(Of course it was NOT a supper instituted by Christ. The idea
that the NT Passover symbols were "a supper" is not found in any
NT verse, though some will quote 1 Cor.11:20 to say it is. But
understanding the Greek here gives you the truth as to what Paul
actually said. He said: "When you come together therefore into
one place, you CANNOT eat the Lord's supper" - see a good Greek
Lexicon, or as the Greek scholar Green translated in his
Greek/English NT, "Coming together then you, together, NOT it is
of the Lord a supper to eat."
The OT Passover was a supper type meal with roasted lamb. Jesus
during that supper introduced the NT Passover ordinance - bread
and wine. And so it is not a supper meal at all in any sense of
imagination, it is in many respects quite different from the OT
Passover meal, but it is still the Passover - Keith Hunt)
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
1.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.4, p.277, art. "Consecration."
2.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation.' p.749.
3.Encyclopedia of Religions, vol.2, p.77.
4.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.14, p.586, art. "Theology."
5.Ibid., vol.10, p.6, art. "Mass, Sacrifice of."
6.Ibid., p.13.
7.Ibid., vol.7, p.346, art. "High Altar."
8.The New Baltimore Catechism, no.3, question 931.
9.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.5, p.581, art. "Eucharist."
10.Ibid., vol.4, p.176, art. "Communion under both kinds."
11.Ibid.
12.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation,' p.741.
13.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.10, p.404, art. "Mithraism."
14.Encyclopedia of Religions, vol.2, p.76.
15.Prescott's Conquest of Mexico, vol.3.
16.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.232.
17.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.489, art. "Host."
18.Ibid., p.492.
19.Ibid., p.491.
20.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.163.
21.Wilkinson, Egyptians, vol.5, p.353 (quoted by Hislop, p.160).
22.Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, p.351.
23.Inman, 'Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,' p.34.
24.Dobbins,'Story of the World's Worship,' p.383.
25.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.162.
26.Lethaby, Architecture, Nature, and Magic, p.29.
27.Ibid.
28.Nichols, 'The Growth of the Christian Church,' p.23.
29.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.164.
30.Scott, 'Romanism and the Gospel,' p.93.
31.Boettner, 'Roman Catholicism,' p.170.
............
END OF OUR STUDY FROM WOODROW (his original work was published in
1966)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment