Question for X-SDA or knowledgeable Catholic

[kepha1]

Did you realize that you started with denying that the church killed more person than those killed in the twentieth century than denying that the church was responsible for the death of many? Does that then mean that deep down you admit that the church did kill many Christians? Please note that this is not to put you down or any other catholic for that matter but we need to take a close look at the evidence.
Pro 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

I have a theory about anti-Catholic hate propaganda. The dynamic is the same as pornography. When reading it, the heart rate goes up, and the brain chemistry (dopamine, epinephrines) is altered. It drives the reader to find more stimulating hate to get the same “fix”. Black and red colors, even the sound of drum beats add to the mood on anti-Catholic web sites. It’s addictive. It diminishes ones ability to reason. It’s Satanic.

The Church never formally killed anyone. Not one person. Yes, there were some that abused their power, but that was sin, not church policy. Presentism is the error of judging a culture of the past with your own. Heresy and treason was the same crime. In that judicial system, as appauling as it was to todays standards, such crimes deserved the death penalty. I’m sorry that they were so politically incorrect 600 years ago, but that is what midaeval means. Governments were executing people for so called religious/treason crimes, and the Church stepped in to stop the genocide. The Church has been a victim of a 400 year old Protestant smear campaign, and there is plenty of evidence to support that statement. I notice the Catholic Church doesn’t propagate the Protestant Inquisition, which was far worse than what has been imagined by hateful anti-Catholic bigots.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
The Real Inquisition

The question is whether or not the Church was wrong in handing over convicted criminals to be executed. Two things need to be pointed out. First, they had a trial, while the Protestant Iquisition had no trials. Second, less than 1% were found guilty and unrepentant. Back then, the Church could not just let everyone who was guilty of a capital offense go free. They had to hand them over to the state. (because the sate arrested them in the first place) Errors? Excesses? The Pope apologized for that, but again, it was a difficult time in history, and the Pope apologized for the sins of SOME Catholics, but the killing of innocent people is not found in any formal Church directive. And the numbers show how hard up anti-Catholics can get for a “fix” of hate. In all the countires affected by the Inquisition, seven in all, the entire population did not add up to 90 million! Experts estimate at around 4000 in a 350 year period. Protestants burned 150,000 “witches” in a 50 year period, but you never hear about that.

You see, 777, we are not afraid to look at the historical facts square in the face, and admit and repent and and express our sorrow FOR WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, but the Pope is not about to apologize for the slanderous fictions of paranoid angry hate mongers bearing false witness in the name of God. We don’t do that to your belief system, whatever it is or isn’t.

I’ve never heard a Protestant minister apologize for the numerous atrocities (as written by Protestant historians) against Catholics. Or Protestants against Protestants. I probably never will.

Please stop reading that spiritual pornography. It’s evil and causes brain damage.

 

[christian_777]

I have a theory about anti-Catholic hate propaganda. The dynamic is the same as pornography. When reading it, the heart rate goes up, and the brain chemistry (dopamine, epinephrines) is altered. It drives the reader to find more stimulating hate to get the same “fix”. Black and red colors, even the sound of drum beats add to the mood on anti-Catholic web sites. It’s addictive. It diminishes ones ability to reason. It’s Satanic.

The Church never formally killed anyone. Not one person. Yes, there were some that abused their power, but that was sin, not church policy. Presentism is the error of judging a culture of the past with your own. Heresy and treason was the same crime. In that judicial system, as appauling as it was to todays standards, such crimes deserved the death penalty. I’m sorry that they were so politically incorrect 600 years ago, but that is what midaeval means. Governments were executing people for so called religious/treason crimes, and the Church stepped in to stop the genocide. The Church has been a victim of a 400 year old Protestant smear campaign, and there is plenty of evidence to support that statement. I notice the Catholic Church doesn’t propagate the Protestant Inquisition, which was far worse than what has been imagined by hateful anti-Catholic bigots.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
The Real Inquisition

The question is whether or not the Church was wrong in handing over convicted criminals to be executed. Two things need to be pointed out. First, they had a trial, while the Protestant Iquisition had no trials. Second, less than 1% were found guilty and unrepentant. Back then, the Church could not just let everyone who was guilty of a capital offense go free. They had to hand them over to the state. (because the sate arrested them in the first place) Errors? Excesses? The Pope apologized for that, but again, it was a difficult time in history, and the Pope apologized for the sins of SOME Catholics, but the killing of innocent people is not found in any formal Church directive. And the numbers show how hard up anti-Catholics can get for a “fix” of hate. In all the countires affected by the Inquisition, seven in all, the entire population did not add up to 90 million! Experts estimate at around 4000 in a 350 year period. Protestants burned 150,000 “witches” in a 50 year period, but you never hear about that.

You see, 777, we are not afraid to look at the historical facts square in the face, and admit and repent and and express our sorrow FOR WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, but the Pope is not about to apologize for the slanderous fictions of paranoid angry hate mongers bearing false witness in the name of God. We don’t do that to your belief system, whatever it is or isn’t.

I’ve never heard a Protestant minister apologize for the numerous atrocities (as written by Protestant historians) against Catholics. Or Protestants against Protestants. I probably never will.

Please stop reading that spiritual pornography. It’s evil and causes brain damage.

The only problem with your case is that the state was subject to the church. So to say that the church had to hand over people to the state is flawed. On more than one point the church fit the discription of the AntiChrist, including killing the saints. This is no hate issue, it is a salvation issue. The test of the church is not tradition but the bible and as such she fails. How would you know if tradition is the will of God? Because the church says so? Jeus denounced tradition: Mat. 15
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
It is the word of God first and all that does not comply with it is denounced. The issue also is why the church did what she did. She got rid of those who promoted the scriptures. Had not God protected some like Matin Luther all would have been killed.

 

[losh14]

I have a theory about anti-Catholic hate propaganda. The dynamic is the same as pornography. When reading it, the heart rate goes up, and the brain chemistry (dopamine, epinephrines) is altered. It drives the reader to find more stimulating hate to get the same “fix”.

I’ve been calling Jack Chick’s writings spiritual pornography for years. This is very apt. A moral outrage can be a poor but believeable substitute for that emotional high that one gets upon being ‘saved’.

I’ve never heard a Protestant minister apologize for the numerous atrocities (as written by Protestant historians) against Catholics. Or Protestants against Protestants. I probably never will.

I don’t expect them to, nor will I demand it. Peace is worth letting go of the atrocities of the past - remember the horror, but let the blame die with the guilty.

 

[losh14]

The only problem with your case is that the state was subject to the church.

It’s overly simplistic to state this. At times there were monarchs who yielded to the Church either out of fear, belief or the desire to court political favor. Consider that from about the 8th century until about the 14th century, an excommunication of a political leader meant certain death and plunder. After that, excommunication wasn’t as much of a burden - the monarchs were on the whole more loyal to themselves and a sense of nationalism than to the Papacy, and following the Reformation if you were a prince who didn’t like what the Pope said you’d simply follow Luther, Calvin or Zwingli.

So to say that the church had to hand over people to the state is flawed.

By the time of the Inquisitions, the Church did not hold sway over civil courts. It would adjudicate clerical matters (ie, defrock a priest who taught heresy) but would not impose penalties upon civil offenders nor even try them. There were not, for example, religious prisons, nor was there a mechanism in place to try individuals for crimes that were not religious in nature. At one time the Church did in a de facto sense hold local judicial authority but this was in the sense of a bishop being the final adjudicator in a civil dispute in the centuries following the fall of Rome. With the rise of imperial states and the Curia, Church and State mostly separated from one another in areas of jurisprudence.

For a better synopsis I recommend Bokenkotter’s “Concise History”, which is probably in your library or can be picked up at Borders with the nifty 33% off coupons they’ve been sending out.

On more than one point the church fit the discription of the AntiChrist, including killing the saints.

This is only assertion - you cannot know whether someone was a saint - ie a true follower of Jesus - only from the historical record. And even if they were, what if they were killed doing something awful? Consider Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, who attempted to forcibly impose the Reformation on other Swiss cantons (equivalent to counties) by blocking food from entering. Catholic military forces attempting to break the blockade attacked and Zwingli was killed in battle? If you include Zwingli in the saints of Christ, do you abhor that he was killed because he was attempting to starve Catholics into conversion?

This is no hate issue, it is a salvation issue.

What is the source of salvation, in your understanding, and how does belonging to a church that has lived through bloody wars impugn the personal salvation of Catholics who are alive today?
Does Zwingli’s death render my faith in Christ meaningless?
If even one innocent person was convicted wrongly by a Catholic magistrate and handed over for death, does that mean that Christ will ignore my baptism?
If the history of the Catholic Church is really as terrible as you claim, and the blood of 150 million persons is on the hands of our predecessors, does all of our faith, all of our Scripture, all of our trust in the Lord become meaningless?

Think seriously about your assertions.

 

[losh14]

The test of the church is not tradition but the bible and as such she fails.

See, this is what frustrates me about you. You sound like you’re going to start on a related point of Scripture, and then move to an entirely different point of Scripture. We’re discussing the lamentable persistence of blood libel and black legend against the Catholic Church, and you move on to arguing against tradition. Are you trying to say that bloodshed is a uniquely Catholic tradition? Or are you positing a montage of unsavory images against the Catholic church - a technique reminiscent of Michael Moore’s films - in an attempt to throw as much muck as you can dig?

Jesus, in Mt 15:3-9, is arguing against the legalism of the Pharisees, who in the previous verse assert:

“Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”

How does this apply to the Catholic Church?

Isaiah’s prophecy (repeated in verses 8 and 9) applies to the Pharisees, not to Catholicism. Your technique is another presentation of the Premise-Conclusion Gap:

1. Jesus warned against ‘traditions of man’
2. Catholicism teaches traditions of man

I could likewise use Mt 15:11 against you, 777:
“It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

Whose words are more defiling - those that claim a history that cannot be backed up, or those who argue against this strange version of history?

How about Rev 21:8:
“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Do you still really believe the stories you’re telling? Do you still see Catholicism as this sinister force sent to massacre true Christians who you can’t seem to identify, much less account for, without resorting to questionable sources?

It’s one thing to object to Catholic theology - and these objections can be done lovingly, as Catholic objections to Protestant theology should be done. It’s another to perpetuate myths and falsehoods against followers of Christ. When asked for evidence, you produce earlier presentations of these same myths and falsehoods. Be careful that what comes out of your mouth here doesn’t make you a reviler.

It is the word of God first and all that does not comply with it is denounced.

And how does your warped vision of history comply with the Word of God?

The issue also is why the church did what she did.

Given the sources you cite, the issue is why the writers of those sources wrote what they wrote about things that had transpired long before their lifetimes.

She got rid of those who promoted the scriptures. Had not God protected some like Matin Luther all would have been killed.

No, we didn’t. We got rid of self-righteous warlords like Zwingli who attempted to starve people into the Reform. There, I’ve given you the name of one person killed by Catholic military. Can you give me the name of one person killed by Catholic military or even by the Church in the last, say, 100 years?

Why do you think we - Catholics - hold and read from and preach from and promote the Scriptures? Why do we have free online Bible studies (ie, www.salvationhistory.com) and why do we give away Bibles? Why does the Mass allow Scripture to be read, prayed, homilized and sung?

Bottom line: you’re arguing against a terrible vision of a religious organization gone haywire, and that is a vision that neither history nor present attest to ever existing.

I know you won’t do it, but I’ll ask you to go to a Mass this weekend. Just one. Sit in the back and watch and tell me if it’s what you expected.

 

[dayofwrath]

Do you think that Lord is satisfied what is going on between Christians? I am going to tell you who is the real Christian.The one who come to the Lord and repent,like the prodigal son.That is all.God bless you.

 

[juliamajor]

Do you think that Lord is satisfied what is going on between Christians? I am going to tell you who is the real Christian.The one who come to the Lord and repent,like the prodigal son.That is all.God bless you.

You are a very wise person!

 

[christian_777]

Bottom line: you’re arguing against a terrible vision of a religious organization gone haywire, and that is a vision that neither history nor present attest to ever existing.

I know you won’t do it, but I’ll ask you to go to a Mass this weekend. Just one. Sit in the back and watch and tell me if it’s what you expected.

Sorry I can not go to Mass, for I have not been persuaded that the following is not true.antichristtruth.com/…

 

[Cristian_B]

Though the NT does not speak of Sunday worship, we do see St Paul challenging the requirement of circumcision.

In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the flesh, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. ~Colossians 2:11-12

The problem was that they didn’t knew that they were circumcised already, and that circumcision happened at their baptism.

 

[Cristian_B]

If there is only one “great city” in the book, the strongest evidence for Jerusalem is that it is the city where the Lord was crucified.

Their corpses will lie in the main street of the great city, which has the symbolic names “Sodom” and “Egypt,” where indeed their Lord was crucified. (Rev 11:8)

If there is only one “great city” these verses would also refer to Jerusalem (Rev 16:19; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21)

You are wrong. Jesus was not crucified in a city, but outside a city. You’re not going to tell me that Jesus was actually crucified in a city, are you? That ‘great city’ is the world, also called ‘Babylon’ and ‘Sodom and Egypt’.

Revelation 11:8 makes a parallel between the world and Sodom and Egypt. It makes a comparison between Sodom and Gomorrah, which were two cities that were destroyed with an eternal fire, and Sodom and Egypt, which is also called Babylon which is the world; the world will be destroyed with an eternal fire in the same way Sodom and Egypt was destroyed with an eternal fire and was reduced to ashes.

Peter says that the world will burn in fervent heat, and that the elements will melt in fire. This is exactly what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Both Sodom & Gomorrah and Sodom & Egypt have ‘Sodom’ because ‘Sodom’ tells us what their ending will be. Jesus was crucified in Sodom and Egypt, the great city which is the world. And this great city will burn with an eternal fire just like the literal Sodom and Gomorrah burned with an eternal fire.

That ‘great city’ is Babylon, Sodom and Egypt (i.e.: the world).

 

[Cristian_B]

Then what church was peter part of… the protestant church!

Matt

Well… he surely protested (like all the first Christians) against the pagan religions and some elements the Jews kept introducing in the Christianity (e.g.: circumcision, cutting away the foreskin of the penis).

All Christians were protestants since they all protested against the pagan religions around them.

 

[Cristian_B]

More rubbish from the rubbish squad.That has to be the most outrageous lie yet.No century ever has been bloodier then the twentieth.The body count was a amazingly high.You have two world wars and purges by the commies in both east and west.You have mechanized weapons that kill way more efficiently then a sword could,guns that fire multiple rounds and bombs that fall from the sky.Try another lie.That one will not fly.Beside the Black Death that decimated Europe the various wars if you add the outrageous amount of concocted deaths that have been added on by persons like you ,you would have and virtually next to no one left.Since logically and historically we know that did not happen we have yet another lie,a calumny,against Catholics.the amount of lies that have been promulgated by you and yours is rather large and rather sad.

WW1: 16.5 million How many people died in World War 1?

WW2: 50-70 million How many people died in World War 2?

Inquisition: A number of legitimate sources list the murdered anywhere between 50 million to 200 million. How many people died from the Inquisition?

If you take the Inquisition and compare it with WW2 and WW1 individually, the Inquisition may have killed the most.

 

[losh14]

Inquisition:

A number of legitimate sources list the murdered anywhere between 50 million to 200 million. How many people died from the Inquisition?

If you take the Inquisition and compare it with WW2 and WW1 individually, the Inquisition may have killed the most.

So because WikiAnswers says "A number of legitimate sources list the murdered anywhere between 50 million to 200 million. " that’s somehow convincing?

Actually, have any of you gone to college yet? Do you have any idea what it means to perform research on primary historical sources or to actually be bothered to look up references? Do you know the difference between a legitimate source of information and a website that can be edited anonymously by anyone?

In other words, do you - 777 or our new friend from Spain - know how to put up something remotely convincing?

This is precisely why misinformation and prejudice get perpetuated - no one bothers to actually look it up.

 

[losh14]

Sorry I can not go to Mass, for I have not been persuaded that the following is not true.antichristtruth.com/…

Well, in a very roundabout way, I think we finally have an answer to the original question posed when this thread was started. Thank you, 777, for putting up a link that summarizes well how the case is made for Rev. 17 talking about the Catholic Church.

Likewise, I’m not persuaded it is true. I’m more convinced that it’s the result of 19th century nativist sentiment creeping into Scriptural exegesis. While this link puts it more succinctly than you have here, it still doesn’t pass any of my previous objections.

 

[losh14]

Well… he surely protested (like all the first Christians) against the pagan religions and some elements the Jews kept introducing in the Christianity (e.g.: circumcision, cutting away the foreskin of the penis).

All Christians were protestants since they all protested against the pagan religions around them.

If you speak English as a second language (being in Zaragoza) I could see where you get this. Protestant, in English use, specifically means adhering to a sola scriptura/sola fide theology as understood by the Reformers, and more generally means not adhering to a Catholic or Orthodox theology.

Unlike some of the Reformers (notably Zwingli) we have no record of Peter coercing pagans into conversion.

 

[christian_777]

You are wrong. Jesus was not crucified in a city, but outside a city. You’re not going to tell me that Jesus was actually crucified in a city, are you? That ‘great city’ is the world, also called ‘Babylon’ and ‘Sodom and Egypt’.

Revelation 11:8 makes a parallel between the world and Sodom and Egypt. It makes a comparison between Sodom and Gomorrah, which were two cities that were destroyed with an eternal fire, and Sodom and Egypt, which is also called Babylon which is the world; the world will be destroyed with an eternal fire in the same way Sodom and Egypt was destroyed with an eternal fire and was reduced to ashes.

Peter says that the world will burn in fervent heat, and that the elements will melt in fire. This is exactly what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Both Sodom & Gomorrah and Sodom & Egypt have ‘Sodom’ because ‘Sodom’ tells us what their ending will be. Jesus was crucified in Sodom and Egypt, the great city which is the world. And this great city will burn with an eternal fire just like the literal Sodom and Gomorrah burned with an eternal fire.

That ‘great city’ is Babylon, Sodom and Egypt (i.e.: the world).

There are those who see the Great City as Farnce(Paris). In context the Two witnesses are the Old and New Testaments and there were dead in the City. France had for a time denied God and Christianity, a loose woman was paraded as the god of reason. She then changed her posrion and the two witnesses as said to be alive again. Things like fire destroying God’s enemies and rian not falling are all contained in the Bible.

 

[christian_777]

Well, in a very roundabout way, I think we finally have an answer to the original question posed when this thread was started. Thank you, 777, for putting up a link that summarizes well how the case is made for Rev. 17 talking about the Catholic Church.

Likewise, I’m not persuaded it is true. I’m more convinced that it’s the result of 19th century nativist sentiment creeping into Scriptural exegesis. While this link puts it more succinctly than you have here, it still doesn’t pass any of my previous objections.

Why? Can you give specifics?

 

[Benadam]

the problem with the enterpretation in the link 777 posted is it fails to notice the most sublime but obvious clue for idetifying the woman who rides the beast. she is the most ancient matriarch and has never been without a daughter to mother her. the primary identifying mark was entirely missed and it’s the mark Jesus accused the leaders of Jerusalem of having. " all the blood ever shed on earth is on her hands,"

when abel’s blood was shed it was all the blood ever shed on earth. the earth opened it’s mouth in the beginning too. the woman, the beast, and the religion of anti-christ is much too entrenched ib the darkness of the human mind too be pinned down to a visible institution. much too sublime to manifest on the surface as if you see it solidified. that’s folly. believe the apostle Paul when he teaches it is hidden till the end events. understand that untill it does it permeates humanity and operates in secret and we are all vulnerable to acting out of it’s false reality religiously.
the first born man awakened in the light of the false dawn of anti-christ. In the false light of the primordial maternity of Eve. All the blood ever shed on earth was on her hands.

 

[losh14]

Why? Can you give specifics?

I will, but I don’t have to. You give a website, I tear it apart, and instead of defending it my refutation you simply move on to another website. At this point I wonder if you actually believe this tripe you keep posting or if you’re just playing me to see when I get tired of this.

You’ve the convenient position of being able to pick a point to attack, and then run when that doesn’t get you where you wanted to go.

Just so you don’t lead anyone else into these same dark waters, I’m going to give a brief response to your link.

In general, I am not convinced by interpretations of prophecy that would not be comprehensible to the initial audience. If the Catholic Church allegedly came about at some later date (pick one - I’ve heard 325, 332, 610) than what we Catholics believe, then the entire narrative in the Apocalypse of John, from Whore to Beast, would be not only meaningless but also without use to the initial recipients of it at the turn of the 2nd century. This is why I disregared Hal Lindsey when he takes mention of eagles and bears in the OT prophets to symbolize the U.S. and USSR (or more recently, Russia). The Spirit tends to be pragmatic with prophecy and doesn’t give it just so it can be written down, wondered about and used to justify false conclusions for centuries.

The interpretation in the link is also difficult to accept as faithful to John’s intent because it conflates the persons of the Whore and the Beast - who are distinct (the latter destroys the former in 17:6) in Scripture but somehow conflated into the Antichrist (a word which does not occur in the Apocalypse). This suggests that keeping them as distinct persons is inconvenient to the purpose of the website and so is simply smoothed over.

The link is also non-unique, ie it dismisses (without reason) the Imperial Cult of Rome as the Beast. Given the preponderance of thought from the early Christian fathers to today that considered specific emperors (notably Domitian, who at the time was feared to be a reincarnation of sorts of Nero) as the Beast and the Jews as the Whore (who fell in too comfily with the Romans), this is a curious omission. It is either through ignorance, which suggests a lack of research, or intentional, which suggests that the website was designed with the end of accusing the Catholic Church in mind.

 

[losh14]

Why? Can you give specifics?

On to specifics:

CLAIM 1: In the Bible, a woman symbolizes a church.
OBJECTION: The website cites Is 54 and Ez 16, which accuse Jews of committing the spiritual equivalent of adultery by participating in idol worship. It is not uniquely a church - an institution based on covenantal relationship with God is sufficient. Ie, you can’t rule out first-century Judaism as being represented by the Whore, especially given the Scriptural precedent in Isaiah and Ezekiel which readers of John’s Apocalypse would have understood.

CLAIM 2: The Whore is a corrupt church that teaches false doctrines.
OBJECTION: The Whore is punished for her adultery - and this is consistent with the language in Isaiah and Ezekiel. It is that she broke her marriage vows and is thus playing the harlot - again, the Jews are John’s intended target.

CLAIM 3: The Antichrist is a worldwide church, so it must be the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: Non-unique. Accrording to adventist.org, the SDA church is active in 125 nations - thus also sitting on many waters. This could easily reference pagan Rome - which was arguably the center of the world at the time - but would not exclude Israel.

CLAIM 4: The Antichrist is a wealthy church, so it must be Catholic.
OBJECTION: The GDP of Vatican City - as a nation - is less than that of Rhode Island. Too much is made of the wealth in Church property - honestly, what is the value of the Sistene Chapel, or the Agony of St. Theresa? Most dioceses run at a deficit with the bulk of their spending on social welfare. Hardly the mark of a harlot.

CLAIM 5: The Antichrist is a church built on seven hills, which is Rome and so is the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: The seven hills of Rome are: Quirinal, Viminal, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Coelian, Aventine. Vatican City is named for the only hill on which it is built - the Vatican. It’s not part of the Rome that John understood and the reference, if it were to the Vatican, would be lost on his audience. The seven hills refer to the pagan Roman Empire that was situated there.

CLAIM 6: The Antichrist is a religious power that dominates civil powers.
OBJECTION: This is not substantiated by Rev 17. The Whore’s fornication is not equivalent to her control of them, and Scripture does not go so far as to assert an equivalence. The Whore’s guilt is her relatons with them, and may very well be her submission to their control. Again, 1st century Israel submitting to Roman rule.

CLAIM 7: The Antichrist is a persecuting church.
OBJECTION. Persecuting? Yes. Church? No, Roman Empire. We have evidence of pagan Imperial Rome’s persecution of Christians (ie, the martyrdom of Polycarp). So far, what you have produced is biased sources, one of which (American Textbook of Popery) is reproduced in the link.

You also have poor context. Baudilliard’s quote is verbatim but ignores the rest of the lecture (it is from a book of his lectures) in which he begins tenderly, asserts the tolerance of the Catholic Church, and recognizes that when violence has occurred it was of necessity to protect the civil order. He argues (quite rationally) that if a group of persons claiming religious freedom opposes the government or even takes up arms, historians tend to look on them with sympathy, yet if that same group is motivated by non-religious reasons then there is no qualm with sending soldiers to quash it.

Baudilliard then quotes the Refomers - Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Hus - stating the same. Luther is gentlest, calling for exile for any who hold an opposing opinion.

This is likewise available on goole books.