Catholics: How do you like to answer the claim of the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t. I dust off ny shoes and walk away from ignorant people.
 
Revelations says that the whore sat on the beast and that the whore sat on seven hills. The seven hills characterize the beast, not the whore. The beast is the Roman Empire, but the whore is Jerusalem under Roman authority. St. John refers to Jerusalem as “the great city” and he refers to the whore as “the great city.” Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude they are the same. Moreover, prostitution in the OT is always associated with Jerusalem or Israel, because only they were “married” to Yahweh and thus could go “whoring” after other gods. It seems unlikely that St. John would call a pagan city a “whore.” Finally, notice that the “whore of Babylon” is the counterpart of the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven, which is the Bride of Christ. That’s because the whore is the old Jerusalem.
 
Another good point to make is that the Vatican doesn’t sit on one of the seven hills of Rome. Vatican hill was outside of the city at the time St John wrote Revelation. It was a crucifixion site, and where St Peter was martyred.
 
Yes. I would add that Revelation says that the Whore is drunk from the blood of saints AND prophets… so Jerusalem qualifies as the place of martyrdom of prophets not Rome.
 
No. I actually have a notebook and if I get good answers that I don’t have I might write them down so I can use it for later
 
The Church is not the whore of babylon. The answer is right there in the scriptures.
 
Last edited:
I think it is alluding to Jerusalem being compromised by its association with the Roman Empire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top