Catholic Satanism

however, Babylon can be a metaphor for many things...

some suggest Bablyon is Isis or Diana, and we, the peole, are being warned that Goddess worship is "evil", but some, like myself, suggest that Babylon is the Catholic church herself...

ask yourself this... what colour robes does the whore of Bablyon wear?

she wears purple and red. Now, ask yourself, what do purple and red represent?

well, look to the vatican. All those men in their red robes.... mm. And purple? Purple, in the old days, was the hardest colour to produce, and cost a lot of money. Peasants couldn't wear purple, as they couldn't afford it. So, who wore purple? Nobility. Kings, specifically.

Nor Isis or Diana ever wore purple. And they never wore red either. In fact, I can't think of many goddesses that do or did. For... Goddesses are not evil things...

we have fecund maidens of the corn, we have voluptuous mothers with pendulous breats full of milk, we have the lady huntress in green, the lady of the starry night clad in a velvet blue star spangled cloak, we have the goddess who spins, and weaves, and cooks, and keeps the home together, the goddess whose bravery saves the kingdom...

heroes for little girls before the days of Vogue...

pagan systems are not satanic- far from it... sure, there are gods like Pan who, with his horns appears to be a demon- yet he is not... Isis herself wears a horned diadem, yet she is hardly Satan...

to call all pagan systems satanic is to expose one's lack of understanding of paganism...

rather than, as you say, the church's trinity be adopted by the pagans I know it was the other way round- in celtic and norse traditions a trinity was also very important- and this was way before xtianity was ever seen in these lands...

the pagan trinity is not- god, jesus, mary, but past, future and present, or the goddess herself, three women in one, the maiden the mother and the crone... is this evil? then by subtle inference, all women are evil...

woo! back to the church again!

your egyptian Goddess has become a goddess in much the same way as Jesus himself became a god- by the decision of the real whore of Bablyon- the church herself...

check out your catholic history- jesus wasn't always considered a God. In fact, at the beginning, he was considered a man. His mother, Mary was a woman. It was only later did the bishops decide that Jesus was not just Man, and not just God, but a curious mixture of both...

after Jesus' status had been decided, then they went onto Mary, and hers. Originally Mary then, as the womb of God, was revered, but some people didn't like that, and so they demoted Mary, and relegated her from the pantheon. Mary herself was then barred access to heaven (technically, via the popes) until around 1956- when she became ascended... if you don't believe me, check out the church... all of the above is the reason why we have differences in the different "strains" of Catholicism- such as orthodox Grk and Russian, etc...

now... the clever scholar will realise this...

as christianity spread, the leaders decided it would be easier for people to make the switch over to christianity IF the new religion looked like the old- so various festivals were invented which were alike those which came before- easter, christmas, halloween... rather than destroy the old gods, the new gods looked a little like the old ones- and then, when the people were comfortable, things began to change-

no longer could we pray to the goddess, as there was no longer a goddess...

...there has been a rise in what you term Marian worship globally, in the past 200 years, but for a lot of catholics- myself included, Mary has always been an important part of the faith and will remain so, for a few simple reasons...

most of the people who comprise the faithful are not theologians, and many of them are women.

you see, we could pray to jesus, but we are told we can't pray to him for worldly things... we can offer him love and devotion, and that's it... we can't go to Jehovah, as he's a cold authoritarian, and no matter what we do we'll never be good enough... so, who's left?

well, what about Our Lady?

she's kind, she's a mum, she knows what it's like to have her heart broken, watch her son die, she knows what it's like to nurture a precious life, and now she's been entered into heaven she will intercede for us, she will speak to her son for us...

what's so bad about that? How is that satanic?

of course yes, the staunch theologians will tell us that- Mary is not Jesus... Mary has no power, no merit. If this is the case then Mary just a body that God raped and then cast aside. Do you want to worship a God like that?

If Jesus is real, and in the heavens, then why would he not want his mother with him? If he is a powerful being, then surely she would become so too, by virtue of his position?

these are questions the church has tried to answer over the years, and it's all there, in black and white... what the church had decided.

Unfortunately for the church, the Goddess lives on. Whether she appears as Mary, an innocent virgin, or as Bablyon the scarlet clad whore, she is there.

Unfortunately for the church, women come in more varieties than simply "virgin" and "whore", and thankfully those women who cannot find their expression within catholicism are able now to worship whoever they like...


result..!


have just realised this is a reply to an old thread, but still... am posting anyway...
 
Hi Francis —
however, Babylon can be a metaphor for many things...
Indeed it can, so we are dependent upon hermeneutics to understand the meaning implied by the author.

some suggest Bablyon is Isis or Diana, and we, the peole, are being warned that Goddess worship is "evil", but some, like myself, suggest that Babylon is the Catholic church herself...
And both are much later, retro-fitting of interpretation, with no relevance to the place and time in which the book was written, to suit individual taste and opinion rather than any meaningful historical criteria. On such a basis Babylon can stand for anything one fancies ... and has done. The list goes on and on ...

The scholarly concensus is that the Book of Revelations was written to a Christian community suffering persecution. Babylon in that case would be the persecutor, in this instance, Rome.

ask yourself this... what colour robes does the whore of Bablyon wear?

she wears purple and red. Now, ask yourself, what do purple and red represent?
To the people reading the book ... Rome.

check out your catholic history- jesus wasn't always considered a God. In fact, at the beginning, he was considered a man. His mother, Mary was a woman. It was only later did the bishops decide that Jesus was not just Man, and not just God, but a curious mixture of both...
Actually this is wrong. The Gospels state implicitly that Jesus was both God and man. Prior to the Gospels, the Epistles likewise. The Letter to the Hebrews, for example (c40-80AD), is one of the most profound contemplations of the humanity and divinity of the Incarnate Son.

So the Church believed, professed, and taught that Jesus was the Incarnate Son of God from the very beginning.

Quite how the Divine and human natures co-exist is something that is still being explored. It's my favourite subject in all theology.

after Jesus' status had been decided, then they went onto Mary, and hers. Originally Mary then, as the womb of God, was revered, but some people didn't like that, and so they demoted Mary, and relegated her from the pantheon. Mary herself was then barred access to heaven (technically, via the popes) until around 1956- when she became ascended... if you don't believe me, check out the church... all of the above is the reason why we have differences in the different "strains" of Catholicism- such as orthodox Grk and Russian, etc...

Francis, this is entirely wrong.

In fact in the 5th century the Nestorians tried to deny the title 'Theotokos' ('God bearer') to Mary. The Church revoked this teaching, insisting that Mary was the Mother of God.

The Mysteries of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption have been present in the Church's liturgies, which are older than Her Scripture.

The Doctrine of the Assumption in 1956 was no more than a doctrinal statement affirming that which had always been believed by the Church, which the document itself says.

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS para 41:
"Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith - this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times, which is completely in harmony with the other revealed truths, and which has been expounded and explained magnificently in the work, the science, and the wisdom of the theologians-we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived."

Catholics all through history have been vilified for their devotions to the Blessed Virgin, even to equating her with her Son ... so if you choose not to believe a Catholic, check out what the Protestants say.

Nor are the orthodoxies separated with regard to the Blessed Virgin, except perhaps the Greek who claim that the Catholic states what they would rather leave unsaid ... so in fact the Roman Catholic church champions the supreme status of the Blessed Virgin, even to the point of 'Co-Mediatrix', whereas the others remain quiet, and would rather say nothing.

That the Church elevated her above and beyond the cosmological determinations of maiden/mother/crone, past/present/future, etc., meant she disappeared from the horizon of the pagan world ... but do not for a moment assume she was discarded ... she has transcended the cosmological, as does all Christian doctrine.

This is something consistently misunderstood, as people constantly try and determine Christian doctrine according to cosmological considerations.

Thomas
 
so... when then, you say Rome is Babylon for these early scholars, is this the Rome of the church, or the Rome of the state?

I don't agree that I am wrong about the status of Jesus. Yes, the gospels may (now) state he was always Man/God, but the issue was debated by the Bishops in the days of the early church.

as far as I was led to believe, it was the Greeks who were insistent that she was theotokos, not the Catholics... but maybe I am wrong...

The Doctrine of the Assumption in 1956 was no more than a doctrinal statement affirming that which had always been believed by the Church...
yes, the document says- now we're letting her in... okay, we've always said she was (covering their back, maybe?), but now its official...
why would the church need to affirm it's position like this unless doctrinally the issue was a cloudy one?
peace be with u..
Francis
 
Hi Francis —

so... when then, you say Rome is Babylon for these early scholars, is this the Rome of the church, or the Rome of the state?
I'm not talking about scholars, I'm talking about the audience the author had in mind — the Roman state, that was persecuting Christians.

Scholarship is pretty much agreed that Revelations was written to a community under pressure by the Roman authorities.

Those who state that Babylon was the Roman Catholic Church invariably have a pre-determined anti-Church agenda.

+++

I don't agree that I am wrong about the status of Jesus. Yes, the gospels may (now) state he was always Man/God, but the issue was debated by the Bishops in the days of the early church.
Not his Divinity. The how of it, yes, but not the actuality of it.

To imply that 'the gospels 'may (now) state' will require you to present evidence of editing.

as far as I was led to believe, it was the Greeks who were insistent that she was theotokos, not the Catholics... but maybe I am wrong...

Here's the problem, there was no 'Greeks' and 'Catholics', so this indicates some bias, at least. There was East and West, certainly, but all agreed in the one faith, the East/West divide was later, over different issues.

A more accurate description might be differences between Alexandria and Antioch — and it was between these two that the Nestorian dispute arose over 'theotokos' (Alexandria) and 'christotokos' (Antioch) — Rome agreed with Alexandria.

yes, the document says- now we're letting her in... okay, we've always said she was (covering their back, maybe?), but now its official...
The document is available online. If you can find the text that supports your argument, I am happy to discuss it.

Apostolic Constitution defining the Dogma of the Assumption - Munificentissimus Deus

Thomas
 
Back
Top