Is Babylon the Great, Catholicism?

[mostolto]

many Christian denominations, today interpret the passages, in the Bible book of Revelation, that refer to “Babylon the Great” the “Mother of Harlots”, as applying to the Roman Catholic church. this is a wholly negative interpretation, as it essentially implies that the Catholic church is an enemy of Christ, that will ultimately be destroyed by God. what is the correct interpretation of these passages. Who is “Babylon the Great” and how can we show this in the scriptures

 

[bzkoss236]

Simply put, No. Many anti-Catholics will try to make this connection, but the most common belief among those educated in the matter say that the “Whore of Babylon” refers to ancient pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem.

Here are two tracts from Catholic Answers on the subject:
Hunting the Whore of Babylon
The Whore of Babylon

 

[mostolto]

thats strange. how could “Babylon the Great” refer to Ancient Rome when the book of Revelation (see Chap 1), and these passages in particular, clearly refer to events that must still take place in the future. clearly Ancient Rome and her pagan religions are no more. they dissapeared a long time ago. so how could her destruction then take place in the future? i am a little confused

 

[Dorothy]

thats strange. how could “Babylon the Great” refer to Ancient Rome when the book of Revelation (see Chap 1), and these passages in particular, clearly refer to events that must still take place in the future. clearly Ancient Rome and her pagan religions are no more. they dissapeared a long time ago. so how could her destruction then take place in the future? i am a little confused

In today’s world we still have many aspects of paganism that Ancient Rome had. “Strange gods” have not disappeared in the entire world’s culture.

One, for instance, is materialism, the idolization of money. There are many more false gods.

 

[bzkoss236]

thats strange. how could “Babylon the Great” refer to Ancient Rome when the book of Revelation (see Chap 1), and these passages in particular, clearly refer to events that must still take place in the future. clearly Ancient Rome and her pagan religions are no more. they dissapeared a long time ago. so how could her destruction then take place in the future? i am a little confused

I don’t know if you knew this, but the book of Revelation is about a prophecy revealed to St. John by an angel. Now, this is also a very poetic piece, so the details may not have happened exactly, and some of the prophecy may yet still have to be fulfilled.

Here is a Catholic Answers Live podcast on the matter of the Book of Revelation.

 

[yukonbrad]

thats strange. how could “Babylon the Great” refer to Ancient Rome when the book of Revelation (see Chap 1), and these passages in particular, clearly refer to events that must still take place in the future. clearly Ancient Rome and her pagan religions are no more. they dissapeared a long time ago. so how could her destruction then take place in the future? i am a little confused

Writters of the time, in this case John of Patmos, used terms and references that people of the day would understand - in a way it is a metaphor. What was Rome to the early Catholic/christian church - its greatest enemy and persecutor. It is in that light we must look at what “Babylon” represents.

 

[1ke]

thats strange. how could “Babylon the Great” refer to Ancient Rome when the book of Revelation (see Chap 1), and these passages in particular, clearly refer to events that must still take place in the future. clearly Ancient Rome and her pagan religions are no more. they dissapeared a long time ago. so how could her destruction then take place in the future? i am a little confused

Yes, of course you are confused. It is apocalyptic literature. It is full of symbolism and imagery that I imagine are quite foreign to you.

It has multiple meanings on multiple levels.

 

[mostolto]

bare in mind that neither Islam or Orthodox Judaism accepted either Jesus as the Messiah, or the New Testament of his disciples, as Gods word. yes, a prophet, but not the Messiah. as Christians we would have to be certain of this. yes, Jesus was a Jew, but the Orthodox Jews were awaiting someone that would bring peace to the world at his first coming, not at his second. I agree, the interpretation will hopefully become clearer as time passes. certainly if Jesus was the Messiah, and Christians are right, we have no need to look to the future for the arrival of another. a very tricky dilemma for everyone, especially for those Christians who point to the Roman Catholic church as “Babylon the Great”

 

[SonCatcher]

thats strange. how could “Babylon the Great” refer to Ancient Rome when the book of Revelation (see Chap 1), and these passages in particular, clearly refer to events that must still take place in the future. clearly Ancient Rome and her pagan religions are no more. they dissapeared a long time ago. so how could her destruction then take place in the future? i am a little confused

Prophetic literature generally has a contemporary meaning in addition to the future meaning. Also, for safety reasons, “Babylon” was substituted for Rome to reduce the chance of a more massive persecution than what the Christians of that day already faced.

 

[bzkoss236]

bare in mind that neither Islam or Orthodox Judaism accepted either Jesus as the Messiah, or the New Testament of his disciples, as Gods word. yes, a prophet, but not the Messiah. as Christians we would have to be certain of this. yes, Jesus was a Jew, but the Orthodox Jews were awaiting someone that would bring peace to the world at his first coming, not at his second. I agree, the interpretation will hopefully become clearer as time passes. certainly if Jesus was the Messiah, and Christians are right, we have no need to look to the future for the arrival of another. a very tricky dilemma for everyone, especially for those Christians who point to the Roman Catholic church as “Babylon the Great”

You are misled. Jesus apostles and close disciples knew he was the Son of God and the Messiah, this isn’t a later development, it was a fundamental belief since the beginning. That is part of what the New Testament is about, the establishment of Christianity. The reason why people “point to the Roman Catholic Church” as the “Whore of Babylon” (not “Babylon the Great” because that would have to be a place, which people say is Rome, or the Vatican in particular) is because they already have an issue with the Church, so they are trying to find ways to create scandal to gain more converts. They look for ways to make the Church out to be the bad guy, and shout it from the rooftops, no matter how poorly built their claims are. It’s like a little child saying “I’m better than you” and if you try to say anything in rebuttal, they just scream louder and louder.