COULD CATHOLIC CHURCH BE THE MOTHER OF ABOMINATIONS?

The Book of Revelation speaks of a religion it calls the Whore of Babylon, Mother of Abominations. The Protestant world used to suspect and believe that this entity was and is the Roman Catholic Church. Many Protestants still believe that.

The Book of Revelation speaks of the whore as having power over the whole world. It says she is a whore as a system. She is not called the whore because all the people who comprise her are sexually immoral. A religious system can only be a spiritual whore - sells itself to evil instead of God - in return for power and glory and money.

Abominations means disgusting things worthy of absolute detestation. Who finds the whore detestable? Revelation says that it is God because God calls her the mother of abominations. The world does not find her detestable as it willingly participates in her spiritual fornication.

The Christian who accepts that the Roman Church is the whore cannot pray with a Catholic or attend Catholic worship under any circumstances. No can he contribute to a fundraiser for the Catholic Church. Nor can he make laws that allow Catholic devotion in public. It's simple, is something is morally an abomination then it cannot be condoned in any manner.

The argument that we must not get involved in the occult for it implies we are wiling to risk dallying with demons and evil spirits is an interesting one. It is good advice if the supernatural really exists. Most occult practices do not openly intend to consort with such forces and entities. Catholic occultism is the exception for it shows a willingness to embraces forces that harm the person.

Catholicism embraces extreme occult. The whore is into sorcery which she uses to seduce all the nations. Read Revelation 18:23, "And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."

Bible prophecy mentions a religious abomination that appears after the sacred sacrifices of the Jews are prevented. This can be understood to refer to the Mass which appeared after the end of Jewish sacrifices. The temple cult ended in 70 AD. The abomination lasts until the end of time. Jesus too said during his ministry that the prophecy had yet to be fulfilled. The majority view is that the prediction refers to the end of the Temple. Some feel it is about an earlier attack on the Temple but Christians cannot accept that view for it contradicts Jesus.

And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.
Daniel 9:27 (ASV)

And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate.
Daniel 11:31 (ASV)

And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand and two hundred and ninety days.
 Daniel 12:11 (ASV)

It is possible to argue that Jesus himself was the abomination. Here is Daniel 8.

8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

Let me repeat some things.

Jesus predicted the coming of the abomination that causes desolation. He was referring to Daniel 11:31 which says it will take place during a time of distress that is so severe that its like has never been seen. It says too that it will happen after the sacrifices end in the Temple of Jerusalem. These sacrifices ceased in 70 AD after Jesus' time. Mark 13:14 tells the reader of Jesus' saying to understand it meaning he can look it up in the Old Testament book of Daniel. So we are talking about the greatest abomination ever. It is supposed the abomination refers to the sacrilegious murder of Jesus Christ the Son of God. But Jesus' death did not take place in the time of the worst suffering. And Temple sacrifices did not cease with the death of Jesus. The abomination in Daniel is described in the context of something blasphemous and idolatrous being done to God's shrine and his religion. The Catholic Mass which purports to make the killing of Jesus present took place in times of great suffering and is done in places consecrated to God and by a religion supposedly founded by God. It is the real candidate for being the abomination of desolation. The Bible says that the abomination will be destroyed by God and the saints will then rise from the dead. It is talking about something that happens between the ending of sacrifice in 70 AD and the end of the world when the saints rise. The Mass is the best candidate and the best fit for the data.

The powers of the Church are claimed to be manifested best in the saints. The saints are really Catholics who obey fully and unite fully with the Church. Catholics who sin or contradict Church teaching are considered to be in imperfect communion with the Church. Thus if the Catholic Church is evil we will see the evidence primarily in the lives of the saints.

When people read accounts of what demons allegedly do to people, they are shocked and repelled by the cruelty of the evil spirits. Many of those people though do not have a problem with what their God and Jesus and Mary did to their saints. That is religious prejudice in its omnipotence.

Some of the saints have had visions of Jesus in which they were mutilated and left with wounds in their hands, feet and side as if they had been crucified.

The Church is quick to justify the love the saints had for suffering. It says, "We have to suffer anyway so we may as well suffer in honour of God and to offer him reparation for our own sins and those of others." But if you don't want the suffering how can you really offer it? It is like saying you offer your vision to God or your hearing.

In 1224, St Francis of Assisi encountered a vision that gave him the stigmata and surprisingly Leo who was with Francis at that time "Suddenly he saw a vision of a seraph, a six-winged angel on a cross. This angel gave him the gift of the five wounds of Christ."  Jesus then did not do it.
 
Francis died in 1226. The first biography of Francis written by Thomas of Celano in 1230, goes, "
" he did not know what the vision meant. He rejoiced greatly in the benign and gracious expression with which he saw himself regarded by the seraph, whose beauty was indescribable; yet he was alarmed by the fact that the seraph was affixed to the cross and was suffering terribly. Thus Francis rose, one might say, sad and happy, joy and grief alternating in him. He wondered anxiously what this vision could mean, and his soul was uneasy as it searched for understanding. And as his understanding sought in vain for an explanation and his heart was filled with perplexity at the great novelty of this vision, the marks of nails began to appear in his hands and feet, just as he had seen them slightly earlier in the crucified man above him. His wrists and feet seemed to be pierced by nails, with the heads of the nails appearing on his wrists and on the upper sides of his feet, the points appearing on the other side. The marks were round on the palm of each hand but elongated on the other side, and small pieces of flesh jutting out from the rest took on the appearance of the nail-ends, bent and driven back. In the same way the marks of nails were impressed on his feet and projected beyond the rest of the flesh. Moreover, his right side had a large wound as if it had been pierced with a spear, and it often bled so that his tunic and trousers were soaked with his sacred blood."

None of the habits kept as relics of Francis have been found authentic. Carbon dating has debunked one of them. The other could be from Frances time but there is no blood on it. If it is not really his, then it is convenient that the real habits are no longer with us. They could be examined for blood.

Padre Pio is another alleged stigmatist. Pio wrote: "I saw before me a mysterious person...his hands and feet and side were dripping with blood. The vision disappeared and I became aware that my hands, feet and side were dripping blood. Imagine the agony I experienced and continue to experience almost every day... I am dying of pain because of the wounds and resulting embarrassment".
 
Pio was never observed 24/7 to make sure he was not making the stigmata "wounds" himself. The doctors who examined him merely said he had wounds or marks and they did not diagnose a cause. They could not when the observation was not done.

Pio had the ability to turn off pain while being operated on and yet when his stigmata was being examined medically he struggled and thwarted a proper assessment and used the pain as an excuse.

Apart from one case, no stigmatic has ever been caught cheating. Yet it is clear a lot of the alleged stigmatists must have been frauds. This shows that the Catholics are biased and if people were caught it would be rationalised, "They had to fake then but they were not faking all the time." Spiritualists used a similar excuse when mediums were caught. All that excuse does is prevent you from seeing a real charlatan for what he is.

Heather Woods was a stigmatist who had all the marks of the crucifixion. She was part of a psychic occult group. She functioned as a medium and liked to channel writings and drawings from the spirit world. Witnesses of the stigmata said the blood miraculously came through the skin and the wounds are supposed to have emitted such great heat that it was like touching a candle flame. She followed Father Eric Eades who was a spiritual medium for Padre Pio. Woods died of drowning in 1993. If her magic was real, then it follows that for Catholics, it must be seen as demonic or Satanic. Satan then likes the stigmata miracle ... He even promoted Pio through her and her priest. Interesting but scary for Catholics!

St Catherine of Siena died at 33 and had anexoria for she tried to eat but could not. All she could eat was communion and body waste from sick people. Her spiritual director Raymond recorded how she would suck pus from the infected wound of one of her patients just for penance. She told him, "As long as I have lived, I have never tasted sweeter or more exquisite food and drink." Sick bitch!

Not long before she died, she even gave up drinking water. She started this act of fanaticism in January 1380 and only stopped it when it was too late. She had committed suicide in a sense.

How do today's Catholics respond to the saintly and approved practices of severe mortifications engaged in by Catholics of former days? They might state that they were not good for those who engaged in them and exercised a fanatical and warped influence over the Church in general. The miracle of anexoria glorified anexoria nervosa. The Catholics will then soften what they have said by bellowing: "Good or not, I must not imposing our modern values and our modern knowledge on their times. What they did was right in those times!" This contradicts the fact that there is no excuse for religious self-harm. People should not be canonised who have sought suffering so much that they starved themselves to death. And they are contradicting Catholic doctrine which claims that morality is written in the heart and is not a mere fashion. The excuse that it was right for people to engage in savage self-abuse for religious reasons long ago is relativism - relativism is severely condemned by the Church. As relativism is condemned, it can be assumed the Church approves of the evil practices and today is afraid to say so.

Current Church teaching says, "In the Bible and in Christian hagiography we come across cases of deceased persons, of angels, and of demons appearing to the living to warn, help, tempt, or punish them. Such communications, however, always take place in a sober atmosphere, in which rules the will of God who arranges or permits them. In spiritism, on the contrary, we find a spectacle of exhibitionism, often grotesque, which is repugnant to the sanctity of God and to the dignity of the angels and the disincarnate spirits." (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Msgr. Pietro Parente pg. 266).

But what about the exhibitionism of Catherine? And Francis of Assisi? Pio claimed he was embarrassed by his wounds - if so then why did he deliberately create a public perception of him as a great miracle-worker who was frequently beaten up by demons?

Bernadette of Lourdes reportedly saw the Virgin Mary at Lourdes in 1858. In fact, she referred to the entity as that thing or aquero. She use that term even after the visions were accepted by the Church as being from the Virgin Mary. Near her death she said that the Virgin Mary treated her like her broom and when she had finished with her put her behind the door (page 71, The Book of Miracles). She did not feel respected by the entity. She met the entity and the Church did not. Only a little number of the alleged miraculous healings were decided to be miraculous. And there is still controversy about the ones accepted as miracles.

Tradition says that Morning Star is Lucifer the Devil's title. The Catholic Church calls Mary the Morning Star! This leads some to think that the Church disguises Satan as Mary to get him worshipped!

“All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2116).

Most priests today say that if there is an everlasting torment in Hell, that the people there inflict it on themselves against the will of God who does not want them to be there. There is no trace of that idea in the Bible. It leads Catholics to think, "As long as I feel and think I have not rejected God completely by my sins, I cannot go to Hell. Hell is only for those who just hate him. I don't hate God - not even when I commit murder." This view teaches that it is not sin that puts you in Hell but your simply not wanting to be with God. The Bible speaks of sin putting you in Hell. The Bible speaks of people who observe a form of religion and who do not completely rail against God and who are still going to Hell if they die. It says you can reject God and feel love for him. The first epistle of John warns against those who say they love God - they certainly feel they do - but they reject God all the same for they hate their brother. Jesus said that people would tell him one day how much they loved him and served him and even did miracles for him and how he told them that he never knew them. Hell then will be largely populated by those who felt they loved God and did not choose that fate. The Devil and his angels supposedly want the human race damned with them in Hell and plot to accomplish this. That would be a sign of anger. They would not feel angry if they thought it was their own fault. For the true believing Christian, the priests who tell people that Hell is not about punishment but about people refusing to go to God are helping the Devil and his angels to get plenty of human beings to join them in Hell. Also, the Bible plainly says that it is a place of everlasting punishment.

Another Catholic gimmick is to say that Hell is eternal - you go into a timeless state of being separated from God. Even if the Bible says eternity exists, it does not say that to enter Hell is to enter eternity. Hell could be a place or state of being where time goes on forever and ever. The eternity idea implies that Hell is no worse than a moment of suffering and agony on earth. It will not feel like it is prolonged torment for eternity is just like a present moment but with no past or no future. It is like a moment of time frozen forever. This doctrine is comforting to the sinner who believes. He thinks then it is not that bad if he dies estranged from God.

A religion is not necessarily to blame if people do what the religion forbids in its name. If a Quaker commits a suicide bombing that is not the fault of Quakerism. But if the religion gives sacraments to a person that are supposed to be efficacious in making the person good and holy and its members are no better or worse than people of other religions and none then the religion is to blame. It is giving the members treatment for their evil aspirations that do not work. A doctor is to blame for the patient's death for having tried to cure the cancer with aspirin instead referring her for the usual treatments.

From the viewpoint of Bible teaching, the Catholic Church could indeed be mother of abominations.