Some People will believe anything...

Looks bad right? Well, guess what? IT'S A CHRISTMAS DECORATION!!!!!

A woman rides the beast Part IV

Rome Equals Vatican

Some may object that it is Rome, and not that small part of it known as Vatican City, which is built on seven hills, and that the Vatican can hardly be called a "great city." Though both objections are true, the words "Vatican" and "Rome" are universally used interchangeably. Just as one would refer to Washington and mean the government that runs the United States, so one refers to Rome and means the hierarchy that rules the Roman Catholic Church.

True, one MIGHT refer to Rome and mean the Vatican, but one might also mean the Italian Government or the Coleseum. We cannot assume, that just because someone says "Rome" that they autmatically mean the Vatican. Just like not every single reference to "Washington" is a reference to the White House or Capitol.

Take for example a placard carried by a demonstrator outside the November 15-18, 1993, meeting in Washington D.C. of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Protesting any deviation from the pope's wishes, it read: "ROME'S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY." (Our Sunday Visitor, December 5, 1993, p. 3.)0bviously by "Rome" it meant the Vatican. Such is the common usage, So closely are Catholicism and Rome linked that the Catholic Church is known as the Roman Catholic Church, or simply the Roman Church.

Now, this picture could have come from any number of sources, but he choose "Our Sunday Visitor" in order to use another Catholic source. In order to make it appear he heavily used Catholic sources in this work. His point is weak, the context makes it very clear what is meant by "Rome".

Moreover, for more than a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church exercised both religious and civil control over the entire city of Rome and its surroundings. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) abolished the secular Roman Senate and placed the administration of Rome directly under his command. The Roman Senate that had governed the city under the Caesars had been known as the Curia Romana (Roman Curia). That name, according to the Pocket Catholic Dictionary, is now the designation of "the whole ensemble of administrative and judicial offices through which the Pope directs the operations of the Catholic Church.(John A. Hardon, S.J., Pocket Catholic Dictionary (Image Books [Doubleday], 1985), p. 99.)

Now we got into false history. The Roman Senate disappeared from History around the 7th Century, the Popes had nothing to do with it. In the 12th Century, the Popes turned the administration of Rome over to City Magistrates with the power of (war and peace) Source But, his definition of the Roman Curia is correct, but it applies only to the highlighted passage. It is poor composition on his part not to separate his quote, someone might assume it applies to the entire passage. Which of course is his intent.

The popes' authority even extended to large territories outside Rome acquired in the eighth century. At that time, with the help of a deliberately fraudulent document manufactured for the popes known as The Donation of Constantine, Pope Stephen III convinced Pepin, king of the Franks and father of Charlemagne, that territories recently taken by the Lombards from the Byzantines actually had been given to the papacy by the Emperor Constantine. Pepin routed the Lombards and handed to the pope the keys to some 20 cities (Ravenna, Ancona, Bologna, Ferrara, lesi, Gubbio, etc.) and the huge chunk of land joining them along the Adriatic coast.

Notice that in this paragraph there is not one single citation. Even though it is filled with "facts", every sentence should have a citation, but they don't. Why? Could it because there is little historical fact in it? Yes, Pepin conquered those territories and yes, he gave them to the Pope, but not because of the Donation of Constantine. Google, the "Donation of Pepin".

Dated 30 March 315, The Donation declared that Constantine had given these lands, along with Rome and the Lateran Palace, to the popes in perpetuity. In 1440 this document was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, a papal aide, and is so recognized by historians today. Yet allegedly infallible popes continued for centuries to assert that The Donation was genuine and on that basis to justify their pomp, power, and possessions. That fraud is still perpetuated by an inscription in the baptistry of Rome's St. John Lateran, which has never been corrected.

Once again, Popes are only infallible on matters of faith and morals. Being suckered by a good forgery makes them human, nothing else. And as for the inscription, it reads:

MARTYRIBUS XPI DNI VOTA JOHANNES
REDDIDIT ANTISTES SANCTIFICANTE DEO
AC SACRI FONTIS SIMILI FULGENTE METALLO
PROVIDUS INSTANTER HOC COPULAVIT OPUS
QUO QUISQUIS GRADIENS ET XPM PRONUS ADORANS

John, bishop by God's consecration, made devout prayers to the martyrs for the Lord Christ and with foresight put this work together apace with enamel gleaming like te sacred spring, that each man may process and stoop to worship Christ and offer their prayers in profusion to Heaven.

I fail to see what needs to be corrected, or what it has to do with the donation of Constantine.

Thus the Papal States were literally stolen by the popes from their rightful owners. The papacy controlled and taxed these territories and derived great wealth from them until 1848. At that time the pope, along with the rulers of most of the other divided territories of Italy, was forced to grant his rebellious subjects a constitution. In September 1860, over his raging protests, Pius IX lost all of the papal states to the new, finally united Kingdom of Italy, which left him, at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, still in control of Rome and its surroundings.

Again, notice something, that's right, no citations. More "facts" nothing to back them up. The Papal States were conquered by Pepin and given to the Pope in exchange for his support for Pepins claims to the Frankish Crown. Who does the Pope think are thier rightful owners? The Lombards, who stole them from the Byzantines? The Byzantines who took them from the Romans, the Romans who took them from the original kings and princes? Such is human history. Interesting though, Hunt view the Pope as "stealing" his land from the Lombards, but it was a "United Italy" that "controlled" the Papal States. This is a very hypocritical observation, either the conquest of land by force is either theft or it is not.

The point is that, exactly as John foresaw in his vision, a spiritual entity that claimed a special relationship with Christ and with God became identified with a city that was built on seven hills. That "woman" committed spiritual fornication with earthly rulers and eventually reigned over them. The Roman Catholic Church has been continuously identified with that city. As "The most definitive Catholic encyclopedia since Vatican II" declares:

...hence, one understands the central place of Rome in the life of the Church today and the significance of the title, Roman Catholic Church, the Church that is universal, yet focused upon the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. Since the founding of the Church there by St. Peter, Rome has been the center of all Christendom(Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1991), p. 842.).

Again, the citation of a Catholic source is merely to give the appearance of research. In his attempt to link Rome=Vatican, he has failed miserably.

Catholics in the news lately.

There have been some heroic and inspirational Catholics in the news lately.

1. Cmdr. Francis X. Castellano, Captain of the USS Bainbridge and 4th Degree Knight of Columbus, responsible for the rescue of:
2. Capt. Richard Phillips, Captain of the Maersk-Alabama, offered himself in exchange for his crew and ship to Somali pirates.
3. Susan Boyle, a devout member of her parish choir and overnight sensation, and the woman in my post yesterday
   

Proof that you should not judge.

Never did Jesus speak truer words than when he said that we should not judge others.

Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent
Uploaded by dwarthy

Feeling old-school Gospel today:

Where are the Gentlemen?

James White has put out 2 videos on youtube just absolutely vilifying his sister, her religious choices and her divorce. He also attacks anyone who defends her. As per his usual tactics, he disables all comments on his videos and his blog. That is why there is no dissent in his reformed Baptist church either, dissent with the "Doctor" is not allowed.

I guess the adultress in the Bible who was saved from being stoned by Christs words "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", is lucky James White was not there. It seems he would have gladly felt that he could have thrown the first stone.

Mr. White, a Catholic Gentleman will always step in and defend a woman who is being attacked. Your youtube diatribes against her are just exercises in cruelty. Your constant refering to your sister as "Mrs. Bonds" is a not so subtle attempt to make it clear to her that she is no longer your sister (as far as your concerned). On her blog she always refers to you as her brother.

If you want to attack anyone, here I am. Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Art Sippo and William Albrecht are doing what any honorable brother would do, defend his sister. Perhaps you can learn from them.

A Woman rides the beast Part III

Let's keep going, shall we?

In Bed with the Rulers

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

Which ones? Where? Once again Hunt throws out an opinion as fact, very subtly but this is a statement that screams for some kind of citation, but he offers none. Also, his analysis of Christs bridegroom is pure opinion, the Bible states no such thing about the "personality" of the bride.

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

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

This verse supports the Catholic Church far more than it condemns it. This book is one long diatribe of hate against the church, hence Christ's promise to the church is fulfilled "therefore the world hateth you". Next it states that "Her popes have built an unrivaled worldwide empire of property, wealth, and influence." Again opinion masquerading as fact. Also, nowhere in Vatican Two does it states that the Catholic church seeks to bring under its control all men and their goods. It does say that the Catholic Church continues to spread the Gospel of Christ accross the entire world: "The entire church is called to carry on the work of making disciples. It has the obligation and sacred right to evangelize.” (Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity, Vatican II, #7) As for the Bull "In Coena Domini" it does none of the things Hunt ascribes to it, and of course Hunt fails to mention that it ceased to be renewed under Clement XIV in 1770, because, it was no longer necessary. What this Bull was was a listing of crimes against the Church, and their appropriate punishments. It was written in the era when there were two courts, one religious and one secular. Such was medevil law, and when it ceased being necessary, the Popes quit issuing it. Also, Pope Pius only swore it was to remain eternal law " till any fresh determinations should be announced." Which were, by Pope Urban VIII, a discussion of this Bull and the fact that it is NOT ex cathedra can be found in "Catholic Church and Christian State: A Series of Essays on the Relation of the Church to the Civil Power" by Joseph Hergenröther , in Chapter nine.

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

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

The level of historical inaccuracy in this passage is staggering, as it shows that Hunt did little or no research on this. The north-south line he refers to was in the Bull "Inter caetera". What needs to be kept in mind here, was that North and South America were not even known to exist, it was thought that Columbus had only found a series of islands about half-way to Asia. This treaty only gave Spain a Portugal the right to evangelize these areas, the Pope never claimed to own them. This was an attempt at mediation, about a year later, Spain and Portugal would sign the Treaty of Tordesillas which would supercede this Bull. I should point out that at the end of this passage, Hunt goes to the tried and true Anti-Catholic tactic of a "cite of a cite", this shows his primary source of this information is the Anti-Catholic Avro Manhattan.

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

This statement reeks of hypocrisy. And, historical ignorance. It is clear that by "North America" he means only Canada and the United States. Also, Britain had no problem forcing Protestantism on the Native Americans, and when the United States was created, forcing religion by the sword was dismissed in favor of relocation and extermination by the overwhelmingly protestant Americans. So, the implication that Native Americans went untouched by Northern European Protestants is dishonest and distasteful.

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

Nor have the descenedents of the Cherokee, Creek, Sioux forgotten that white Protestants, under the pseudo-religious banner of "Manifest Destiny" broke every promise, and quite often, conversion was not even a choice, it was merely death.

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

The Popes have never controlled more land than the small "Papal States" and since the zenith of Papal temporal power in the middle-ages, the temporal power of the Pope is now non-existent. Many Protestants have inserted themselves with kings and princes, Luther all but ran northern Germany, Calvin, the low countries. The Monarch of England is also the head of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches. How many pastors sit on school boards, city councils or State legislatures in this country? Nowadays, it is not the RCC committing fornication.

Ray Comfort - Just another anti-Catholic.

I used to have a pretty good opinion of Ray Comfort. I did not agree with everything he said, but I thought he was a genuine man of God. Today, my opinion changed. What happened? I found his blog. And after doing a search on the word "catholic" I discovered he has absoulutely nothing good to say, and even tells some real whoppers about the Catholic church. Let's run them down, shall we?

His first one is from today, nothing major except his complete inability to understand how intelligent people can believe in both evolution and creation and see them as completely compatable.

His next post is a critique of the movie "Religuous" where he lumps Catholicism as a "manmade religion".

He then goes on to criticize the opinions of Athiests, with his "Athiest Starter Kit" he states number 9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.
The implication here, of course, is that everything evil done in the name of Christ, was ONLY done by the Catholic Church. Protestants are completely innocent of all of this and lead perfect exemplary lives. (Never mind that the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Protestantism, many fundamentalists believe that Galileo was wrong, and Muslims have been killed by Protestants as well) Ray, if you are going to embrace the label "Protestant" you inherit all the baggage that goes with it.

The inquisition and Galelieo appears to be near-obsessions with Ray, he constantly brings them up to prove Catholics aren't Christian. But there were Protestant Inquisitions too Ray, and many fundamentalists believe Galileo is wrong.

Next, he writes an article calling Nostradamus a liar and a thief, and then hypocritically lies about the Catholic Church. He states that Nostradamus lifted his "predictions" from Scripture which he "read in secret". Why did he need to read it in secret? Because Ray claims that: "because in those days the Roman Catholic church forbade the reading of the Scriptures." Now, this is just a lie, there is no other explination for it. Because, if anyone does even a little research, they would see that at no time in its history has the Catholic Church forbid the reading of the Scriptures. They were then, as they are now, read in the churches every day. By Nostradamus' time there were any number of churches or libraries where an educated man like Nostradamus could read the scriptures.

He then creates and laments a percieved "double standard" between the way the FLDS child abuse was handled and the "sex scandal" was handled. He accuses the Pope of paying people off. Well Ray, the two cases were not remotely similiar, heres why. First, the FLDS abuse was occuring NOW, most of the abuse in the church happened 20 or more years ago. Yes, no Bishops were charged, but some did resign and others lost thier position (Cardinal Law). Of course no mention is made of the thousands of cases of abuse in Fundamentalist churches, but Ray needs to try to show that ONLY Catholics do these horrible things, all the better to scare people away from the Catholic Church.
In that same article he smugly asserts that Catholicsm is not Christian because its "official doctrine of justification by works flies in the face of the Bible" Never mind it is not the official doctrine of the Church that our justification is by works. The official doctrine of the Church is that we are justified by the Grace of Christ.

In his post "at the checkout" he repeats a common lie. That if you ask a Catholic if they are a Christian they will respond "No, I'm Catholic". He repeats this lie in "Our inventions", now, I'm Catholic, and if someone asked me if I am a Christian, my response would be "yes". Every Catholic I know would give this same answer, we KNOW we are Christians, it is fundamentalists like Ray who try to claim we are not. Here is a paragraph from this article:

Nator . . . please study your history. It was the Roman Catholic church (not the Christian Church) that arrested Galileo. I have spoken to hundreds of Roman Catholics, and when you ask them “Are you a Christian?” most say, “No. I’m a Roman Catholic.” They know the difference. One is steeped in tradition, and the other adheres to the Bible. And the Catholic church didn’t get their information “from the Bible” (it was a banned Book).

First error, Catholic is Christian, I am a Catholic Ray, and I am telling you that there is no difference between Catholic and Christian. Catholicism is steeped in Tradition AND it adheres to the Bible. And, the Catholic Church has never banned the Bible, it celebrates it. He also includes a ridiculous cartoon showing a Bishop wearing a "Dagon mitre", this reveals alot about where he gets his info about the RCC, and it is not from Catholic sources.

He later gives his definition of a "Protestant" which is: That means he protests that the Roman Catholic church imprisoned Galileo (even though he admits in another post that Galileo was actually in a spacious apartment during his trial and served his sentence in a Villa in Florence, some imprisionment). He protests that they killed innocent Christians in the Spanish Inquisition. (few if any Protestants were brought before the inquisition in Spain) He protests that they embarked on the Crusades that slaughtered multitudes in the name of God. (what of the "witch trials" that raged across protestant Europe? What about Cromwells slaughter of Catholic women and children in Ireland?)

Does Comfort also embrace the sins of Protestantism just as he expects Catholics to accept the blame for past Catholic sins? Of course to listen to Ray, you would never know Protestants sinned at all.

Next comes a post directed at Catholics, and the ignorance flows, he states:

Joel, that’s a good question (I don't know if you're an atheist. Many people who are now high profile atheists are ex-Catholics--see my book Hollywood Be Thy Name for details). The Second of the Ten Commandments forbids paying homage (bowing down) to any graven image of any likeness, anywhere. The Roman Catholic church got around it by removing the Second Commandment and splitting the last one into two Commandments, to make up the ten. It sounds hard to believe, so check it out for yourself on the Vatican web site: www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm).

First, there are quite a few high-profile athiests who were Protestants as well, so that means nothing. Next, he talks of the 2nd commandment as if it is specifically enumerated in the Bible, it isn't. As a matter of fact, there are three different divisions of the 10 commandments in use today. Also, he tries to make his point by linking to the Vatican website and going "see!". Nope Ray, first of all, look at the very Catechism you linked to, you would see that Catholics put that with the first commandment where it belongs, and we do not break up the last commandment. We refuse to equate a mans wife with his chattle.

Well, that is enough, I hope Ray repents of his deceptions. Things like this are the rotten fruit of OSAS. Ray himself admits that "If someone doesn’t fear God, they will lie to you (if they think that they can get away with it)" Well, obviously Ray, you thought you could get away with it.

A Woman rides the beast - Part II

This section is interesting because it has absolutely no outside references (other than the Scriptures) AT ALL. Which means it is all Mr. Hunts interpretation or opinion.

Who Is the Whore?

The first thing we are told about the woman is that she is a "whore" (Revelation 17:1), that earthly kings "have committed fornication" with her (verse 2), and that "all the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication" (verse 3). Why would a city be called a whore and be accused of having committed fornication with kings? Such an indictment would never be made of London or Moscow or Paris-or any other ordinary city. It wouldn't make sense.

This is obviously his thesis statement, let's see where he goes with this.

Fornication and adultery are used in the Bible in both the physical and the spiritual sense. Of Jerusalem God said, "How is the faithful city become a harlot!" (Isaiah 1:21). Israel, whom God had set apart from all other peoples to be holy for His purposes, had entered into unholy, adulterous alliances with the idol-worshiping nations about her. She had "committed adultery with stones and with stocks [idols]" (Jeremiah 3:9); "and with their idols have they committed adultery" (Ezekiel 23:37). The entire chapter of Ezekiel 16 explains lsrael's spiritual adultery in detail, both with heathen nations and with their false gods, as do many other passages.

Ok, so far so good.

There is no way that a city could engage in literal, fleshly fornication. Thus we can only conclude that John, like the prophets in the Old Testament, is using the term in its spiritual sense. The city, therefore, must claim a spiritual relationship with God. Otherwise such an allegation would be meaningless.

Ok, a city must claim a spiritual relationship with God, ok.

Though it is built on seven hills, there would be no reason to accuse Rio de Janeiro of spiritual fornication. It makes no claim of having a special relationship with God. And though Jerusalem has that relationship, it cannot be the woman riding on the beast, for it is not built on seven hills. Nor does it meet the other criteria by which this woman is to be identified.

And here's the build-up....

Against only one other city in history could a charge of fornication be leveled. That city is Rome, and more specifically Vatican City. She claims to have been the worldwide headquarters of Christianity since its beginning and maintains that claim to this day. Her pope enthroned in Rome claims to be the exclusive representative of God, the vicar of Christ. Rome is the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church, and in that too she is unique.

Correct (almost) on Rome, wrong on Vatican City. Two different cities. They cannot be used interchangeably. Yes, Vatican City is where the Pope resides. The Vatican is located inside the City of Rome (now, but not in Johns time). Rome itself is NOT the headquarters of the RCC, just like the City of New York is NOT the UN.

Numerous churches, of course, are headquartered in cities, but only one city is the headquarters of a church. The Mormon Church, for example, is headquartered in Salt Lake City, but there is much more to Salt Lake City than the Mormon Church. Not so with Vatican City. It is the heartbeat of the Roman Catholic Church and nothing else. She is a spiritual entity that could very well be accused of spiritual fornication if she did not remain true to Christ.

And, there is much more to Rome than the Vatican. Literally thousands of different companies are based there and operate there, it is the seat of the Italian Government as well. The fact is, by itself, the Vatican City, meets some, but not all of your critera, specifically it only sits on ONE hill, not seven.

Now, Imperial Rome which was in existence at the time John wrote, fits all of Mr. Hunts criteria exactly. Each hill had a significance in the Government. Imperial Rome had committed massive fornication with the then Kings of the Earth (see Antony and Cleopatra) and Ruling was Romes sole function.

Back to Work!

Sorry for the delays. Since my last post, I have lost my job, gone through the holidays, got a new job and moved 200 miles. Whew!

Right now I am working on a review of one chapter from Dave Hunt's book, "A Woman Rides the Beast" I have read this book and I am tired of it being trotted out as the end-all be-all of books about Catholicism. I am taking it one section at a time, so it is going to be a slow process.

Here is my first installment, I highlighted his sources: Catholic sources are in red, and non-catholic or anti-catholic sources are in green. Hope you enjoy:

A City on Seven Hills

A woman rides the beast, and that woman is a city built on seven hills that reigns over the kings of the earth! Was ever in all of history such a statement made? John immediately equates the readers' acceptance of this revelation with "wisdom." We dare not pass over such a disclosure casually. It merits our careful and prayerful attention.

Yes, it does, and our open-minded interpretation, but does Mr. Hunt do that?

Here is no mystical or allegorical language but an unambiguous statement in plain words: "The woman ... is that great city." There is no justification for seeking some other hidden meaning. Yet books have been written and sermons preached insisting that "Mystery Babylon" is the United States. That is clearly not the case, for the United States is a country, not a city. One might justifiably refer to the United States as Sodom, considering the honor now given to homosexuals, but it is definitely not the Babylon that John sees in this vision. The woman is a city.

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

That is correct. But one must wonder why Mr. Hunt felt the need to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia to cite that fact. No reason, any number of modern and ancient books refer to Rome as the "City on seven hills". But he goes to a Catholic source, presumibly to show that even Catholics acknowledge that it is called that. Heck, the Catholic Encyclopedia even acknowledges that Austin is the Capitol of Texas, does that mean that it is part of some grand conspiracy? No, it just means that Austin is the Capitol of Texas.

There are, of course, other cities, such as Rio de Janeiro, that were also built on seven hills. Therefore, John provides at least seven more characteristics to limit the identification to Rome alone. We will examine each one in detail in subsequent chapters. However, as a preview of where we are going, we will list them now and discuss each one briefly. As we shall see, there is only one city on the earth which, in both historical and contemporary perspectives, passes every test John gives, including its identification as Mystery Babylon. That city is Rome, and more specifically, Vatican City.

Two completely different places, the Vatican does not sit on one of the seven hills of Rome, it actually sits on the opposite side of the Tiber from the ancient city. Mr. Hunt does seem to constantly confuse Rome with the Vatican, not realizing that is like constantly confusing New York with the UN Building.

Even Catholic apologist Karl Keating admits that Rome has long been known as Babylon. Keating claims that Peter's statement "The church here in Babylon ... sends you her greeting" (from I Peter 5:13) proves that Peter was writing from Rome. He explains further:

"Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the last book of the Bible [four of the six are in chapters 17 and 18 and in extrabiblical works such as Sibylling Oracles (5, 159f.), the Apocalypse of Baruch (ii, 1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).
Eusebius Pamphilius, writing about 303, noted that "it is said that Peter's first epistle... was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."(Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" (Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 200.)

Of course quite a few fundamentalists would dispute Mr. Hunts acceptance of this "code word" for Imperial Rome, being "Babylon" Many loudly proclaim that it is NOT a word for Rome but that Peter was literally in Babylon WA Christwell even states "There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If I Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible. " So which is it? Clearly Babylon is a code word for Imperial Rome, which was in existence at the time of John and Peter, and that obviously the early church refered to it as Babylon, the city that persecuted the Jews, and now the city of Rome was persecuting the Christians, so the correlarry makes sense.

As for "Mystery," that name imprinted on the woman's forehead is the perfect designation for Vatican City. Mystery is at the very heart of Roman Catholicism, from the words "Mysterium fide" pronounced at the alleged transformation of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ to the enigmatic apparitions of Mary around the world. Every sacrament, from baptism to extreme unction, manifests the mysterious power which the faithful must believe the priests wield, but for which there is no visible evidence. Rome's new Catechism explains that liturgy "aims to initiate souls into the mystery of Christ (It is 'mystagogy.')" and that all of the Church's liturgy is "mystery."(Catechism of the Catholic Church (The Wanderer Press, 1994), p. 279, para. 1075.)

Here he shows his ignorance of Catholicism (again). He presumes to state that "powers" come from the Priests. The "power" is from the Holy Spirit, the Priest is merely the vessel. The water may come out of the faucet, but the faucet does not manifest the water. Now, as for his catechism reference:
1075 Liturgical catechesis aims to initiate people into the mystery of Christ ( It is "mystagogy." ) by proceeding from the visible to the invisible, from the sign to the thing signified, from the "sacraments" to the "mysteries." Such catechesis is to be presented by local and regional catechisms. This Catechism, which aims to serve the whole Church in all the diversity of her rites and cultures,(Cf. SC 3-4.) will present what is fundamental and common to the whole Church in the liturgy as mystery and as celebration (Section One), and then the seven sacraments and the sacramentals (Section Two).

Christ is a mystery, how can he be 100% man and 100% God? How could he raise himself from the dead? How can simple bread and wine become his true presence? Hunt obviously demands phyisical proof for his miracles. But as Christ said to St. Thomas, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe"

But they're actually saving them!

I checked out the blog abortionclinicdays again, and was floored by the posting over there now. Acorrding to the most recent post over there, abortion actually does the aborted children (or as she de-humanizes them "pregnancies") a favor by saving them from lives of poverty.

She states:

They wanted their pregnancy, they loved their pregnancy, but they could not in good conscience ask their child to suffer the same poverty they were suffering.

First of all, it is a child, not a pregnancy. A slip-up she makes here. Secondly, she tries a justification defense that we are "saving" a person from a life of poverty. Apparently poverty is so horrible that it is better for a child to die than live in it. However, kill your born children and try this defense and you will be laughed out of court. It's called loving your child to death, the same thing Andrea Yates did, she loved her children to much to let them fall prey to the "devil". More of the hypocricy of feminism that one is called a victim and another a murderer.

She goes on to state that until we take care of the children we have, then killing the unborn is acceptable so as not to add to societies burden. (The Nazis called this "Life unworthy of life") And that we should reform adoption laws (which I agree with her)

The fact that a blonde, blue-eyed baby is exponentially more likely to be adopted than a six year-old child of color is an American tragedy. The fact that children with disabilities of any age or ethnicity are lost in the system is an American tragedy.

And why is that white children are more likely to be adopted? It is because the overwhelming majority of potential adoptive parents are white and the majority of adoptable children are minorities. So is racism to blame? No actually, it is because so many "liberals" refuse to de-segregate the adoption process. Trans-racial adoption and foster care is not allowed in most states. Conservatives and family groups for years have called for this, but liberal groups will not allow it to happen, even in her article Ms. Varian does not call to lift restrictions on race, but she does on every other demographic:

We need to recognize the beauty of all kinds of family structures and stop preventing perfectly loving people from adopting and fostering children because they are single, gay, or otherwise non-nuclear.

But to prevent perfectly loving people from adopting based on race is perfectly ok.

I could go on, but read the article and you will see the rhetoric.

Oh, and of course this woman needs to throw it in that she was raised a "devout Catholic".

The truth can be painful.

While trolling around the pro-abortion blogs I found this posting at "Un-Expecting":

Helpful Tip for the Ladies

NEVER Google Image the phrase “abortion.” Ack! I was trying to find a clever image for my profile picture and made the mistake of typing abortion in the search box. It’s just bad, bad, bad. Hence the totally prosaic Gerbera daisy.

Gerbera daises are definitely much nicer to look at.

So, out of curiosity I Google Image'd the phrase abortion, HERE is my result.

And, she is right, it is bad. But that is the truth of Abortion. No matter how uncomfortable it makes people.

Pope Benedict on Justification

From his weekly audience on November 26, 2008:

In our continuing catechesis on Saint Paul, we now consider his teaching on faith and works in the process of our justification. Paul insists that we are justified by faith in Christ, and not by any merit of our own. Yet he also emphasizes the relationship between faith and those works which are the fruit of the Holy Spirit’s presence and action within us. The first gift of the Spirit is love, the love of the Father and the Son poured into our hearts (cf. Rom 5:5). Our sharing in the love of Christ leads us to live no longer for ourselves, but for him (cf. 2 Cor 5:14-15); it makes us a new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5:17) and members of his Body, the Church. Faith thus works through love (cf. Gal 5:6). Consequently, there is no contradiction between what Saint Paul teaches and what Saint James teaches regarding the relationship between justifying faith and the fruit which it bears in good works. Rather, there is a different emphasis. Redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, we are called to glorify him in our bodies (cf. 1 Cor 6:20), offering ourselves as a spiritual sacrifice pleasing to God. Justified by the gift of faith in Christ, we are called, as individuals and as a community, to treasure that gift and to let it bear rich fruit in the Spirit.

Probably one of the best explanations I have ever read.

I don't really care for Christian music.

Lately (my wife and I) have been trying to listen to Christian music. I discovered that I don't quite care for it. Don't get me wrong, it is positive and encouraging, and gives praise to the Lord. But I don't really like the music. At least not the modern pop-ish stuff.

I don't care for this:


But, in searching, I did find I lean more towards gospel like:


And of course, the classical hymns and chants are always a fave, my favorite religious music is still Mozart's Requiem.

Marisol's First Performance

Missionary Adventures in Texas and Mexico

I have been reading an ebook: "Missionary Adventures in Texas and Mexico" By Emmanuel Domenech. Written in the 1850's it is by a Catholic Missionary serving in the Texas Frontier. This book is special to me, because this man was almost certainly known by my Great-Great Grandfather. This passage is one of my favorites.

The tender piety of our people, the poverty of our little church, the simplicity of our ceremonies, frequently touched my heart ; and many a time, while I held in my hands our only ostensory of plain wood, which contained the most sacred Host, tears of joy fell from my eyes. Ah ! in the noble cathedrals of France, how full of splendour is religion in the external pomp of her ceremonial. Gold and silver, and thousands of lights, dazzle the eye, and speak to the imagination ; here, on the contrary, everything speaks to the heart, and transports it burning with love to the throne of God. Every Sunday, at ten o'clock, was celebrated the adorable sacrifice of the mass. The music was very good. We had organised a choir, which succeeded beyond our expectation. At three o'clock the faithful, assembled to say the rosary. This exercise was followed by vespers and the benediction of the most Blessed Sacrament. The paschal solemnity of 1849 was truly consoling to us. All the Catholics of Castroville, with very few exceptions, approached the holy table. I had resolved that our little chapel should be decked out and wear quite a festive air for this solemnity, so I commenced its decoration the previous evening, and borrowed all the shawls and pieces of finery, and candlesticks, to be found in Castroville, even procured two small doors to construct lateral altars. The muslin curtains and shawls served as tapestry. I turned wooden vases in a lathe, and gilded them. In these I placed flowers of every hue and size, which I had gathered in the woods and open country. All this magnificence filled the colonists with astonishment. Next day the Catholics of the town, and of the surrounding country, assisted at the celebration of the Divine Mysteries, with feelings of profound reverence, on bended knees, bareheaded, and regardless of the burning sun, which darted its rays upon them. Poor isolated congregation !


How lively, sincere, touching, was this piety on that day ! The Almighty must have looked down with complacency on the little corner of earth where thou offered up thy prayers ! How favourably did thy piety contrast with the wavering, lukewarm piety of the city population of Europe ! In deserts and solitude, the blessings of religion are so much the more fully appreciated, as they are rarely accorded. Human institutions, for the protection of life and property, either do not exist, or are, at best, very inefficient. Man seems placed more immediately under the immediate protection of his Creator, and hence it comes that he raises his eyes and heart unto Him with greater facility and truth.

Eric Jon Phelps lying again.

I am usually very slow to accuse someone of lying, but when the lying is obvious, it needs to be pointed out. On his website "Vatican Assassins" Eric states that his ridiculous book can be ordered through LOWVEHM, Inc. A company that "holds the copyright to the book and has no legal connection with the author" But, that is not what LOWVEHM's website states where it lists: "Eric Jon Phelps, Vice President, Lowvehm, Inc." Sorry Mr. Phelps but being Vice President of a Corporation, makes you legally connected to it.

And, some quick little research shows LOVEHM, to be legally incorporated in Pennsylvania. So, Mr. Phelps who often decries corporations, owns one himself. Hypocrisy.

Larson for Congress

Although Ciro Rodriguez is reported to be Catholic. His 100% approval rating from NARAL, makes me one Catholic who cannot support him. So, if you live in the 23rd Congressional district of Texas, please support Lyle Larson.

My problems with "Alberto" by Chick publications.

All too often people accuse Catholics of attacking Alberto's background, but not what he says, well, I try to address that here, hope you like it.

Alberto could not speak latin, impossible for someone who attended a seminary prior to Vatican II

Children are not placed into seminaries and certainly do not become priests at young ages (Alberto claims we went to a seminary when he was seven years old). Also interesting that Alberto never identifies the seminary. Thus making it impossible to contact the school or former students. This is his first deception.

Also, the Priest is not Christ. Nor does his ordination grant him special "powers".

No Priest or "Bishop" would refer to the Church as the "Old Roman Catholic Institution" (The "Old Roman Catholics" being a schismatic sect in Germany, started after Vatican I) This is also the first time Alberto referred to himself as a "Bishop". Again, with no proof.

He goes on to give statistics with no backing and repeat a extremely anti-catholic book as if it were an expert source. But like many Anti-catholics he refrains from citing the Scriptures, the Catechism, or the Code of Canon Law. This is necessary to prevent the readers from going to those sources. He needs to create dependance on his words as the only facts. This is another tactic of con-men.

And the age-old myth that all priests are rapists, and nuns are sexually repressed. And his source? The equally dubious Charles Chiniquy (whom the church does admit was a priest, yet another ex-priest that is not denied, no, only Alberto gets that honor)

No tunnels have ever been found linking Monasteries with convents. In spain or anywhere else. But Alberto throws out places and dates to appear to be telling the truth. Of course those dates are in the middle of a civil war, so when absolutely no proof is found of his story, he can just claim that it was destroyed, convenient. Of course this is just one of the stories he stole from Maria Monk.

On page 13, he makes one of his biggest mistakes, he claims the Priesthood cannot exist without celibacy. Here he shows his ignorance of Catholicism. If he had been a Priest he would have known that Married priests were allowed in the western church for the first almost 1000 years of the Church, he would also know that there is no vow of celibacy for Priests in the Eastern rites of the Church. So clearly the sacrament of Holy Orders has nothing to do with Celibacy.

Then he quotes Augustine, no actually he doesn't, he quotes Augustine and then states that quote has been removed. Again, how convenient for him.

Next, Alberto shows his ignorance of both Latin and Greek. First of all, Simon is Hebrew, not greek. and means, "he who hears"

And "Petros" does not mean "little pebble" that is "Lithos" Petros is the masculine form of the word "Petra" Jesus could not name Simon "Petra" as Simon was a man and "Petra" is a feminine noun.

Jesus did not call Peter "satan" Satan gave Peter those words, that is whom Jesus was condemning. Because would Jesus have allowed Satan in their midst? No, of course not.

Alberto then goes on to point out yet another hypocrite priest, he needs his readers to at once pity and fear Priests.

"We were not allowed to read Bibles". This, of course, is an outright lie. Every Seminary teaches the Bible and requires students to read them. The Scriptures are read aloud in Church, but Alberto never mentions that. He needs to perpetuate myths in order to make his story believable.

The Nhil Obistat and Imprintur is not a "seal of approval" It is not a "seal" at all.

The church has always known Peter was married, as a matter of fact there have been 8 married Popes and one widower. Read the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, that states clearly Peter was married. This is one of Albertos most revealing mistakes. It shows a complete lack of knowledge and History that no seminarian would possess.

He then refers people to "The two Babylons" by Hislop, and "50 years in the Church of Rome" by Chiniquy. Both, of course, available from Chick publications for a small fee. (this was the main purpose of the tracts, for Jack to sell more publications) Now, he could have referred people to the Catechism or the Catholic Encyclopedia for clarification on Dogma or Doctrine. But that needs to be avoided, when people find out the truth, they have the bad habit of converting.

It claims the Inquisition started in 1200 and was run by the Dominicans and Jesuits. Of course the problem is neither of these groups existed in 1200.

Next, comes a story about Donna Maria de Bohorques actually found in Juan Antonio Llorente's "A Critical History of the Inquisition of Spain", pp. 216-218,

Alberto actually got the story all wrong, he combined the stories of Dona Maria and her sister Dona Jane and combined them into a new person called "Dona Isabella". He then goes on to tell more lies about the Catholic church, the most glaring being that Catholic's believe that Mary claimed to be "the way, the truth and the light". This is of course completely false and is solely to reinforce the sterotype of the uneducated that Catholics are completely ignorant of scriptures.

Again, he goes into details that he destroyed churches and Pastors (never of course, naming ANY of them in order to prevent anyone from trying to verify) He claimed then he was sent to a seminary in Costa Rica, again, not giving a name, why?

Then comes the infamous myth of the "roman Catholic Supercomputer", its absurdity speaks for itself.

In 1981, Alberto states that it "won't be long" before Jesus comes, it is now 27 years later. "Jesus is coming soon" is often a tactic used by religious con men to convince people that their life savings won't be needed and to use it to "spread the truth" before it is too late.

On Page 21, is the total irony. It shows Alberto lying to a Pastor to win his trust by claiming he "suffered under them" (the Catholic Church) in Spain. The EXACT SAME claim he is making in this comic. Was he lying then or lying in this comic?

The next thing, he introduces the angelic looking little Catholic girl, whose "job" it is to destroy marriages and basically act like a %!%+!. This is one of many caricatures he introduces. These caricatures serve the purpose of making people distrust and despise devout Catholics. This is another tactic that rather than educate people about true Catholicism, just scare them away from it.

Then, he sets up his alibi. Saying that the first thing the RCC tries to do to attack good and Holy men of God is to discredit them. Thus, now any attacks on Albertos credibility are now explained. He is not wrong, he is being attacked because he is right. It is a great con, used by snake oil salesman and hucksters for years, (ie the recent book: Cures THEY don't want you to know about). It is always the truth-seeker that is attacked by the liars. Thus, he has ironclad credibility, even though he has provided no proof. The lack of proof becomes the proof.

Again comes another irony, he explains how he "acted" anti-catholic to gain trust. Again, identical to what he is doing in this comic, if he was lying then why shouldn't we believe he is lying now?

Again is the angelic Catholic School Girls, both deceptive, one a %!%+!. Again, this is to scare people into not letting their children get anywhere near Catholics. And he stated that they committed all these sins, to "get points to get out of Purgatory". There is no "point system" for purgatory. Again, Alberto shows his ignorance of a Basic catholic belief. He goes on to show how little he knows about Purgatory, it was not "made official" at Florence. One must wonder, if Catholicism is so transparent, why is Alberto sowing so much fear of it?

The idea that killing can bring grace is horrible. It cannot. And this odd obsession anti-catholics have with Purgatory, they think it controls our lives, it does not.

He then goes on to twist and distort the history of the Mass, we have records of "mass" being held in the second century, Alberto claims it was introduced in the 4th. Catholics do not believe Christ is re-sacrificed at the Mass, a trained Priest would know that. And it is Christ who stated of the bread and wine "this is my body...this is my blood" The blasphemy, to a Catholic, is denying it.

And the notion that Hebrews 10:12 is NEVER read in the Catholic Church is laughable. Actually it is read on Palm Sunday. More proof of Riveras ignorance of Catholicism.

It then makes the ridiculous assertion that Catholics believe that no one can approach Jesus but Mary. Of course we can approach Jesus. He also brings up the myth of Mary as co-redeemer. Catholics do not believe that.

He then goes on to claim that a Jewish rabbi found that it was offensive for Jesus to refer to his mother as "woman". Of course here Alberto, without realizing it, accuses Christ of commiting a sin (dishonoring his mother). But he skips past that to accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary as a goddess.

And Catholics certainly don't believe Mary is "co-equal with God the Father" Again, a mistake no Priest would make. But, he needs to explain the title of "Mother of God" this way, because the truth might actually make people think, so here a lie serves the purpose of scaring people away from Catholicsim and making them pity the ignorant stupid Catholics.

He then gives twisted definitions of penance,

And then come the proofs of the id card and letter, I have dealt with elsewhere. They, in and of themselves prove nothing as they can be acquired by other than legitimate means.

Next, Alberto claims that high Catholics are Masons. Hardly likely as code of Canon Law at that time forbid membership in the Masons and stated it was grounds for immediate excommunication.

He then claimed that the Illuminati were one and the same with the alumbrados, also unlikely since Loyola was one year old when the Alumbrados first appeared. Also, the illuminati was made up of Bavarian agnostics 200 years after the Alumbrados (which were heretical Catholic mystics) disappeared.

Of course, he then goes on to explain that the reason so many churches are recognizing Catholics as fellow Christians is not because they are finally opening their eyes to the truth, but because they are afraid of attacks by the Catholic "plants" in their congregations.

Alberto then goes on to claim he admitted everything in front of a large crowd in Guatamala in 1965. No details are given such as the name of this gathering or who was present, no, as usual, Alberto is very careful not to give out too much detail that may be used to try to verify his story, he needs total dependence on him and his facts.

He then claims that he was tortured in a mental hospital to the point he was placed in an iron lung, nice image, but the iron lung had pretty much ceased to be used in 1960. He goes on to claim he recieved the revelation that Jesus cannot be re-sacrificed at the mass. Well, if he had been a priest, he would not have needed God to reveal this to him, because the church does not believe this. It is just yet another thing to cast doubts on his credibility as a Priest.

He then states he got out of the iron lung and "removed the tubes from my body" Either he was in the iron lung or he had tubes in his body, you can't have rubber tubes in a iron lung, they would constantly be contracting or expanding with the air pressure, this pretty much debunks this part of Alberto's story as impossible.

This is my take on Albertos' story, I have tried to avoid any discussion of him or his background as the complaint is always that Catholics never discuss what he says, only attack him.

Prophecy of the Century?!?!

An Anonymous commenter sent me a comment to check out 2 videos on youtube. Done by a group calling itself "Worlds last chance", they are really nothing more than old re-hashed Catholic-Church-is-the-whore-of-Revelation nonsense. The vid starts out looking like a tribute to Pope John Paul II, but of course, it then goes into the realm of the nonsensical.

At 2:12 the nonsense starts, it gives "definitions" of "prophecy", that "woman" equals "church" and gives Ephesians 5:25 as the justification for this. Well Ephesians 5:25 does compare a woman to the church. Which is true as the church is the bridegroom of Christ. There is no link between this passage in Ephesians however and the symbolism of Revelation. Because, Revelation 17:18 states exactly who the woman is, and she is not a church, she is: "the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth.". IOW Imperial Rome.

But, of course, they identify it as the Roman Catholic Church, because it is the point of their video, reach a conclusion and THEN look for proof. It is the hallmark of anti-catholic apologetics.

They then go on to make several "points" . "Point one" compares the scarlet and purple of the woman of Revelation 17 to the scarlet worn by Cardinals of the Church. Of course some research would have shown that scarlet and Purple were colors of the Roman Emperors.

"Point two" is made with Rev 17:6, of course this is a reference to the Roman persecution of the Christians, and the bloodsport that was often made of it. But they, of course, claim it refers to the "millions killed during the inquistion". Of course this is an absolute falsehood. The fact is, more Catholics were killed by Oliver Cromwell in the space of a couple of years in Ireland than Protestants killed in the hundreds of years of the Inquisition.

Of course at 3:40 into the vid, it states that they were executed for the heresy of reading the Bible. This is of course, laughable, as Catholics have always been free to read the Holy Scriptures. But anti-catholics must keep up the myth that Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible.

And point "three" is silly, It states that the seven hills that the woman sits on are the seven hills of Rome. And that is correct. But the Vatican, does not sit on ANY of these hills, as a matter of fact it is on the opposite side of the river Tiber from Rome. So while anyone who knows history will recognize the woman as Imperial Rome, the uneducated who equate Rome with Vatican, will miss this every time.

It goes on to claim purple and scarlet are symbols of bishops and Cardinals, it is. But the symbolism is clearly the Emperors and their subordinate Kings.

It then quotes Revelation 17:10, and makes the ridiculous assertion that this is an allusion to the Vatican City State. It asks the question, "When did the Roman Catholic Church have any Kings?" Of course the answer could be any number of the Christian Kingdoms that have existed in the Last 2000 years, but that does not fit their propaganda, so they claim the only time Popes had their own territory was with the signing of the Lateran Treaty. Of course this just shows no historical research was performed at all. Or they would have known of the existence of the Papal States for 1000 years prior to the establishment of Italy.

Having failed history 101, it then goes on to make the ridiculous "prophecy" that Pope John Paul II will rise from the grave possessed by a demon and become the anti-christ. Given this videographers track record so far, I relegate this to the absurd.