# When did Rome become 'synagogue of Satan'?



## steadfast7 (Apr 26, 2011)

Many would regard Luther's nailing of the 95 theses as the 'official' start of the Reformation. 

Do the Reformed point to a particular time period or literary work when the church ceased to be the Church and became the Babylonian-captured, 'synagogue of Satan'?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 26, 2011)

I don't want to play judge and jury, but I find it convenient to put it at Trent. 

While Rome had serious doctrinal issues for centuries prior to then, it was at Trent where a council of their church formally and officially declared evangelical belief to be anathema.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 26, 2011)

March 3rd, 1547 at 3:31 pm GMT


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 26, 2011)

Quoting Charles Hodge: «That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain. 1. Because they believe the Scriptures to be the word of God. 2. They direct that the Scriptures should be understood and received as they were understood by the Christian Fathers. 3. They receive the three general creeds of the church, the Apostle’s, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, or as these are summed up in the creed of Pius V. 4. They believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. In one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And the third day rose again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And they believe in one catholic apostolic church. They acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of these doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert there is not truth enough in the above summary to save the soul? (Pages 340, 341 – bold emphasis mine.)

Indeed Dr. Hodge. He finishes the article/review with:

The most common and plausible objections to the admission that the church of Rome is still a part of the visible church are the following. First, it is said that she does not profess the true religion, because though she retains the forms or propositions in which the truth is stated, she vitiates them by her explanation. To which we answer, 1. That in her general creeds, adopted and professed by the people, no explanations are given. The doctrines are asserted in the general terms, just as they were presented and professed before the Romish apostasy. 2. That the explanations, as given by the Council of Trent, are as stated by Theophilus, designedly two-sided and ambiguous; so that while one class of Romanists take them in a sense consistent with their saving efficacy, others take them in a sense which destroys their value. It is notorious that the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England are taken in a Calvinistic sense by one class of her theologians; in a semi-Pelagian sense by another class; and in a Romish sense by a third. 3. While we admit the truth of the objection as a fact, viz., that the dominant class of theologians do explain away most of the saving doctrines of her ancient creeds, yet we deny that this destroys the argument from the profession of those creeds, in proof that as a society she retains saving truth. Because it is the creeds and not the explanations, that constitute the profession of the people.

Secondly, it is objected that Rome Professes fundamental errors. To this we answer, 1. That we acknowledge that the teaching of many of her most authoritative authors is fatally erroneous. 2. That the decisions of the Council of Trent, as understood by one class of Romish theologians, are not less at variance with the truth; but not as they are in fact explained by another class of her doctors. 3. That these decisions and explanations are not incorporated into the creed professed by the people. 4. That the profession of fundamental error by a society retains with such error the essential truths of religion. The Jewish church at the time of Christ, by her officers, in the synagogues and in the sanhedrim [sic], and by all her great parties professed fundamental error justification by the law, for example; and yet retained its being as a church, in the bosom of which the elect of God still lived.

Thirdly, Rome is idolatrous, and therefore in no sense a church. To this we answer, 1. That the practice of the great body of the church of Rome is beyond doubt idolatrous. 2. That the avowed principles of the majority of her teachers are also justly liable to the same charge. 3. That the principles of another class of her doctors, who say they worship neither the images themselves, nor through them, but simply in the presence of them, are not idolatrous in the ordinary meaning of the term. 4. That it is not necessary that every man should be, in the fatal sense of that word, an idolater in order to remain in that church; otherwise there could be not true children of God within its pale. But the contrary is, as a fact, on all hands conceded. 5. We know that the Jewish church, though often overrun with idolatry, never ceased to exist.

Fourthly, it is objected that the people of God are commanded to come out of the church of Rome, which would not be the case were she still a part of the visible church. To this we answer, that the people of God are commanded to come out of every church which either professes error, or which imposes any terms of communion which hurt an enlightened conscience. The non-conformists in the time of Charles II, were bound to leave the church of England, and yet did not thereby assert that it was no longer a church.

Fifthly, it is said we give up too much to the papists if we admit Romanists to be in the church. To this we answer, Every false position is a weak position. The cause of truth. The cause of truth suffers in no way more than from identifying it with error, which is always done when its friends advocate it on false principles. When one says, we favor intemperance, unless we say that the use of intoxicating liquors is sinful; another, that we favor slavery, unless we say slaveholding is a sin; and a third, that we favor popery unless we say the church of Rome is no church, they all, as it seems to us, make the same mistake, and greatly injure the cause in which they are engaged. They dive the adversary an advantage over them, and they fail to enlist the strength of their own side. Men who are anxious to promote temperance, cannot join societies which avow principles which they believe to be untrue; and men who believe popery to be the greatest modern enemy of the gospel, cannot co-operate in measures of opposition to that growing evil, which are founded on the denial of what appear to be important scriptural principles. It is a great mistake to suppose popery is aided by admitting what truth it does include. What gives it its power, what constitutes its peculiarly dangerous character, is that it is not pure infidelity; it is not the entire rejection of the gospel, but truth surrounded with enticing and destructive error. Poison by itself is not so seductive, and therefore not so dangerous, as when mixed with food. We do not believe that those of our brethren from whom we are so unfortunate as to differ on this subject, have a deeper impression than we have either of the destructive character of the errors of popery, or of the danger to which religion and liberty are exposed from its progress. We believe it to be by far the most dangerous forms of delusion and error that has ever arisen in the Christian world, and all the more dangerous from its having arisen and established itself in the church, or temple of God. (Pages 341-344 o»

Source:Discussions in church polity : from the contributions to the "Princeton Review" : Hodge, Charles, 1797-1878 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 26, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> became the Babylonian-captured, 'synagogue of Satan'?



I think that the "Synagogue of Satan" that John was referring to in Revelation was an actual Synagogue that had joined forces with the pagans to persecute the Christians. That is why John adds "Who say they are Jews and are not"


----------



## SRoper (Apr 26, 2011)

I also consider Trent to be the point where Rome abandoned the faith.


----------



## Gage Browning (Apr 26, 2011)

Trent...Canon 9, when they anathemetized the sola fide.


----------



## dudley (Apr 26, 2011)

SRoper said:


> I also consider Trent to be the point where Rome abandoned the faith.



I agree with Scott Roper and the others, Trent was the major dividing line where Rome officially departed from the true faith and became a synagogue of Satan. However the slide to apostasy and heresy began when the papacy became a central controlling force several hundred years earlier. That began the decline in the catholic church to a cult of satan. She today is still a synagogue of Satan and we who are 21srt century protestants need to renounce her now as did the 16th century Reformers.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 26, 2011)

Here is CH Spurgeon's position on the subject:

Charles Haddon Spurgeon on Roman Catholicism

Soon after apostolic times there came the old
Roman rubbish, which in the end proved a
worse hindrance to the gospel than all the
errors which had preceded it.
This Popish rubbish was found in layers; first
one doctrinal error, and then another, and then
another, and then another, and then another,
until at this time the errors of the Church of
Rome are as countless as the stars, as black
as midnight, and as foul as hell.
Her abominations reek in the nostrils of all
Christian men. Her idolatries are the scorn
of reason and the abhorrence of faith.
The iniquities of her practice, and the
atrociousness of her doctrine, almost
surpass belief.
As the gospel is the masterpiece of God,
“Popery” is the masterpiece of Satan!
There can scarcely be imagined anything of
devilish craftiness or Satanic wickedness
which could be compared with her.
She is the unparalleled queen of iniquity!
Behold upon her forehead the name, Mystery,
Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and
abominations of the earth.
The church of Rome and her teachings are a
vast mountain of rubbish covering the truth.

Charles Spurgeon, sermon on Nehemiah 4:10, “Rubbish” (No. 1156)

Charles Haddon Spurgeon on Roman Catholicism « Osage Bluestem


----------



## MW (Apr 26, 2011)

SRoper said:


> I also consider Trent to be the point where Rome abandoned the faith.


 
Then, on what basis did the Reformers separate from Rome before Trent?


----------



## dudley (Apr 26, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > I also consider Trent to be the point where Rome abandoned the faith.
> ...



I agree...That is why I said the decline began several hundred years before Trent...see my earlier post..Trent became the official dividing line between Catholics and Protestants. The Roman catholic church was a synogogue of Satan for many years before Trent....


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 26, 2011)

The Reformers were trying to stear the church away from sailing over the deadly waterfall. Luther and Calvin et al. were still hoping to get the ship diverted from its sure destruction until such time as they were cast overboard and the ship sailed off into oblivion at Trent.


----------



## Gage Browning (Apr 26, 2011)

Whitefield said:


> The Reformers were trying to stear the church away from sailing over the deadly waterfall. Luther and Calvin et al. were still hoping to get the ship diverted from its sure destruction until such time as they were cast overboard and the ship sailed off into oblivion at Trent.


 
Agree. That is why "officially" the downfall of the Roman Church happened at Trent.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2011)

FABULOUS QUESTION FOR AN OP! I have often wondered this as well.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 26, 2011)

If one considers Justification by faith the article of the standing or falling church, there ought to have been a point when this doctrine became corrupt. Trent makes it official, but the Reformers complaint came long before Trent . What i see as a difficulty is that the preaching of justification by faith (as the Reformers understood it) was few and far between in the history of the church with the exception of Augustine (?) - I could be wrong. It seems that the church was semi-pelagian for the most part, therefore, it's _always_ been the synagogue of satan? seems odd.


----------



## dudley (Apr 26, 2011)

Whitefield said:


> The Reformers were trying to stear the church away from sailing over the deadly waterfall. Luther and Calvin et al. were still hoping to get the ship diverted from its sure destruction until such time as they were cast overboard and the ship sailed off into oblivion at Trent.



That is exactly the point I am trying to make.However it became futile at the time of the reformation.

For the first nearly 300 years the Devil had desperately attempted to destroy the church from outside by his terrible persecutions. But with the advent of Constantine he changed his tactics, walking the aisle, applying for membership, and joining the church! To this very day he holds his church letter! The corrupted church was already flourishing in Christ’s day, and the Savior delivered a scathing attack against some of its very deacons and elders! See Matthew 23.

The following practices such as believing that the bread wafer became Christ himself were not official teachings they were heresies being promulgated in the church.

Thus Seven Biblical Reasons that make the Roman catholic church is a synagogue of Satan were made official at Trent by proclaiming these heresies and lies as truth and saying all who did not accept them ..name Protestants were in anathema and condemned and ex communicated.

The lie of The Mass which denies Christ one and only needed sacrifice for all who place their faith in Him alone for salvation…the doctrine of faith plus works….man must now merit his salvation…denial of Justification by faith alone…which St Pail emphasized in the early church.

The lie of the false Sacraments and the lie of transubstantiation that the bread wafer becomes Christ himself and is worshiped in a golden monstrance of idolatry.

The lie of the role of Mary
The lie of Tradition over Scripture
The lie of Veneration (worship) of images
The lie of Purgatory
The lie to Paganism


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 27, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Then, on what basis did the Reformers separate from Rome before Trent?


A good question and one the Catholic apologist likes to mount leveraging the point of divisiveness and/or under what authority the Reformers would claim for their actions.

AMR


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 27, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Then, on what basis did the Reformers separate from Rome before Trent?
> ...


 
I believe it was biblical authority they claim for their actions. That is the only apostolic authority left. That's a major reason the new testament was written, to keep the church in apostolic teachings (2 Peter 1:15). 

The Roman Church was a deadly corrupt institution for well over 1000 years before the reformers. We see fromthe new testament that heresy had already started in the time of the apostles themselves! The entire book of Jude is against heresies. So after their departure wicked men used the church for power and corrupted it's doctrines and took control and kept the bible from the people.

So, the reformers read the bible and found that their church had nothing to do with it. So the reformation was a return to the bible and a cutting off of the false doctrines of Rome.

That's my understanding anyway.


----------



## student ad x (Apr 27, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Then, on what basis did the Reformers separate from Rome before Trent?
> ...


Hey all, 

Please forgive the intrusion of myself in a very good thread. The Reformers claimed Scriptural authority...... no? Romans 1:16-17; Ephesians 2:8-10; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------




steadfast7 said:


> When did Rome become 'synagogue of Satan'?


 Hey steadfast, I am not nearly as knowledgeable as the esteemed brethren, but I tend to think that John Wycliffe brought the apostasy to light.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 27, 2011)

student ad x said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > When did Rome become 'synagogue of Satan'?
> ...


[/quote]
I would say there have always been "Reformers" in the church, as heresy has always been lurking at the gates of the church. Athanasius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Augustine, etc. The Reformation was one of the "We've had it!" moments - perhaps the Great Schism between East and West was another?


----------



## student ad x (Apr 27, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> student ad x said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...





> I would say there have always been "Reformers" in the church, as heresy has always been lurking at the gates of the church. Athanasius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Augustine, etc. The Reformation was one of the "We've had it!" moments - perhaps the Great Schism between East and West was another?


I agree. .... I hesitate to put it this way, but I'm of the opinion that the spirit of _*Ecclesia semper reformanda est*_ was from long ago. I also think the schism was an indicator. The question on the schism between the East and West to me is what reform came to the East or West? Off the top of my head, the East rejected the universal jurisdiction of popery and the filioque clause (I don't recall the other theological disuputes) yet still held to a great deal of other unscriptural practices.

Something about Josiah in 2 Kings in relation to the Word of God being reclaimed by all of God's children just rings in my ears.

When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant saying, "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us." 2 Kings 22:11-13


----------



## athanatos (Apr 27, 2011)

About AD 446. Pope Leo the Great securing Rome and Papal power.


----------



## dudley (Apr 28, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I agree with you David and I think your understanding is 100% correct...It is helpful to distinguish between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity." By the doctrine of apostolic succession the Roman Catholic Church asserts its claim of an uninterrupted and continuous line of succession extending from the twelve apostles through the bishops they ordained right up to the bishops of the present day. 

Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.

Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. Much Roman catholic doctrine is not able to be identified as Apostolicity by standards of scripture. 

Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. 

Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture. 

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Absolutely no provision is made for an authoritative, unwritten tradition. In fact, it is to the touchstone of Scripture that all traditions, including those of Roman Catholicism, must be brought.

Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary.

"Renouncing the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic church is an anti-Catholic stance. That's what it means…to be against their teachings." I am anti Roman Catholicism as were all the reformers. I renounce and protest all her false teachings as all Protestants should. We protest the heresies and proclaim the true Gospel of Christ. 

Calvin passionately sought for the restoration of the Church Catholic of the Apostles and the Fathers, I wish more Presbyterians laid hold of this. That Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion. Our greatest fault is that we are not connected with the ancient faith as he was. 

I think this summarizes what we as Protestants believe about the Roman catholic church and why we see her as “a synagogue of Satan” Satan is the master of deceit and he makes a truth look like a lie…..namely Protestantism and we who are Protestant…. and he makes the lie look like the truth namely Catholicism which is really the “harlot of Satan” and her church thus “a synagogue for Satan“…Roman Catholicism is a crafty lie…we who are Protestant have the true faith through “Apostolicity” . The Roman Catholics have a false Christian faith which traces its roots to “apostolic succession” which is the lie that the pope alone is the vicar of Christ. The papacy is an antichrist institution and is an anti Christ. We 21st century Protestants need to renounce as loudly as did the 16th century Protestant reformers, the roman catholic church and her pope. I renounce Roman Catholicism as such and I renounce the papacy and the pope . I am a 21st century Protestant! I am a Presbyterian and I hold to the Reformed faith and the Westminster standards!


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 28, 2011)

dudley said:


> Calvin passionately sought for the restoration of the Church Catholic of the Apostles and the Fathers, I wish more Presbyterians laid hold of this. That Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion. Our greatest fault is that we are not connected with the ancient faith as he was.


 
I agree with you on Calvin's attempt, but note that he had to be selective in the ancient sources he was quoting from. As I alluded to, the early church fathers (ECFs) were not big preachers of Justification by faith alone, and they had a very mystical view of the sacraments, and of the tradition of the church, including Apostolic succession. It's understandable of course, given the differences in world view and their close proximity to the Apostles. I think we would have a lot of problems of conscience if we went back to the Early Church. Thomas Oden and other are actually trying to push the Church back to a "Nicene Faith" but I think too much theological development has happened that challenges the ancient church that we cannot discard.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 28, 2011)

Another Q could be, When did the Bishop of Rome become Antichrist?

Gregory the Great was Bishop of Rome from 590-604. He said in his opposition to John of Constantinople becoming top bishop among the five patriarchs (of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) "Whoever calls himself universal priest, or desires that title, is by his pride the forerunner of Antichrist." 

But Gregory's next but one successor Boniface III (607) claimed the title of "ecumenical bishop", thus the Man of Sin mentioned in II Thessalonians 2 ascended his throne by A.D. 607 at the latest, and sat enthroned in God's temple and continues to sit enthroned in God's temple i.e. the Roman Catholic Church is still part of the Visible Church, although very corrupt.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 29, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> the Roman Catholic Church is still part of the Visible Church, although very corrupt.


 
here's a question ... if many saints were saved under the preaching of these "antichrists" in churches which were synagogues of satan, then is their gospel adequate to save, in spite of its corruption?


----------



## dudley (Apr 29, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > the Roman Catholic Church is still part of the Visible Church, although very corrupt.
> ...



The Gospel of Rome distorts the one truth that if we have faith in Christ alone and place our faith in Him alone we will be saved by His act of redemption which is finished on Calvary. The Roman catholic is taught that faith alone is not sufficirnt..they must also perform good works ...go to mass every Sunday ..which is a form of worship which denies the completed work of Christ...the mass is a blasphemy against Christ's finished work and the rc communion that they believe becomes the body of Christ and is then is worshipped in gold crafted idols they call monstrance’s makes a mockery of the Lords Supper and thus the catholic is never certain of salvation and can loose faith very easily....Roman Catholicism is a crafty lie of Satan. To bring men to despair....I was at that point when by the grace of God I left the lie , the rcc and began by Gods grace and the influence of Protestant friends the discovery of the true Gospel and Protestantism. Even then it took a few years before I was born again and experienced a true Protestant conversion where I know now I will be saved by my faith in Christ alone...it was not easy to shed all the brainwashing of Catholicism overnight...now after 5 years I can say I have been completely freed from the bondage of popery and a despairing Gospel. I am now purely and completely Reformed Protestant in every way,....I am not too sure I would have been saved otherwise...perhaps some are saved… yes. But they do not know the joy I now know as a Protestant of having the true faith and true Gospel and the truth of salvation placed in my heart...I am thankful I am now a Protestant...I am thankful I am in communion with the Presbyterian church. I can say with an open heart as did the reformers I completely renounce Roman Catholicism and her pope…I am now a Protestant!

---------- Post added at 05:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 AM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> Another Q could be, When did the Bishop of Rome become Antichrist?
> 
> Gregory the Great was Bishop of Rome from 590-604. He said in his opposition to John of Constantinople becoming top bishop among the five patriarchs (of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) "Whoever calls himself universal priest, or desires that title, is by his pride the forerunner of Antichrist."
> 
> But Gregory's next but one successor Boniface III (607) claimed the title of "ecumenical bishop", thus the Man of Sin mentioned in II Thessalonians 2 ascended his throne by A.D. 607 at the latest, and sat enthroned in God's temple and continues to sit enthroned in God's temple i.e. the Roman Catholic Church is still part of the Visible Church, although very corrupt.



I would say the papacy became the antichrist as soon as the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire under the Bishop of Rome. She at that point became the harlot of Satan , the whore of Babylon and the synagogue of Satan...the pope no longer holds the worldly power as in the past. Although I think this guy Joseph Ratzinger would like that. But I still believe the institution of the papacy is in itself anti Christ....and as such should be openly renounced by all Protestants as did the reformers..…


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 29, 2011)

Dudley, do you believe that someone could remain the Roman church from beginning to end and still be truly converted?


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 29, 2011)

> And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns.(Revelation 17:3, ESV)





> And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. (Rev 17:18-17)



Are Rome - and the other apostate denominations and congregations - still in the "driving seat" as she was in the Middle Ages? Notice that the Beast has no crowns because Babylon is in charge. 

The denouement of the apostate Church in history has not yet arrived


> Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more; (Rev 18:21)



Until the end it is true of the apostate Church that the voice of the bride and the bridegroom and the light of a lamp is in her


> and the light of a lamp will shine in you no more, and the voice of bridegroom and bride will be heard in you no more,(Rev 18:23)



But God's true people are encouraged, nay commanded, to leave:


> Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues;(Rev 18:4)


----------



## dudley (Apr 29, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> > And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns.(Revelation 17:3, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The papacy and the RCC are no longer in the drivers seat....many are now coming out of her(Rev18:4) and have heard the truth or are seeking the truth....see the article I posted the other night ...Catholics becoming Protestants and leaving in huge droves...written by a Jesuit priest....she is not in the drivers seat and is however still the whore of Babylon and the harlot of Satan...


----------

