Who is the Harlot AND Her Daughters?

12/3/2012 | self

[DouglasKC]

Question: In the passages below a harlot symbolizes something. The title on her head is "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." One of the titles is "the mother of harlots". This suggests that there are other harlots that have sprung from this harlot.

This is more curiosity then anything else...but what are opinions on what this represents?

Rev 17:1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters,
Rev 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication."
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.
Rev 17:5 And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.
Rev 17:7 But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.
Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Rev 17:9 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.
Rev 17:10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
Rev 17:11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
Rev 17:12 "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.
Rev 17:13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.
Rev 17:14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful."

[daniel1212]

The EO's have is they don't believe in original sin and they did not like the scholastic terminology

That is one aspect, while you have the stronger words of the Greek Orthodox site that i posted as well as the EO's, including those who warn against Ecumenism with Rome, bemoaning "There are Orthodox who fully consider the Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ. With this disregard for the importance of theology, practice is diminished, fasting is often not observed, and the rigor of the Christian life is rarely taught, and the list goes on and on." (www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html)

And their RC counterparts who argue "Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet,"

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation.

Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies... (www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii)

And then there is the SSPX and SVs, etc.. Under sola ecclesia there are also divisions, formal and informal.

[stfassisi]

The fact of the matter is that the Eastern Orthodox are closer to union with the Latin Church than ever before because of thier love for Pope Beneidict XVI

One of my dear friends ,Kolokotronis(He is EO)who does not post here much thinks highly of Benedict XVI and his approach towards mending our differences.

Why you like to try and "stir the pot" on an issues like this is beyond me. I don't believe you understand the effort being made and progress between the EO's and Latins.

You should to stick with your issues regarding protestantism since they are not anything close to the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Church in unity

From Article http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=38394&page=2

A draft document was drawn up for the commission's session last year, and the commission started to consider it but did not finish this process, as the Orthodox had a lot of objections to this text. We expect that the discussion in Vienna on the text of this document will also be quite intensive...Our delegation's goal is to make sure that this document reflects the Orthodox position and rules out any ambiguities, compromises and wrong interpretations of the patristic views on the bishop of Rome's ministering," the priest said.

While it is difficult to reach a consensus on this issue, "this theme should be discussed," because "this is what separates the Catholics and the Orthodox above all," he said. "It needs to be said that the Catholics did not agree to discuss this issue with the Orthodox [Church] for a long time, knowing how radical differences in its interpretation are. The fact that the late Pope John Paul II and then Pope Benedict XVI agreed that this issue be discussed by the commission is quite a benevolent step on the part of the Catholics toward the Orthodox [Church]," he said.

What is going on?  I suggest it is a movement of the Holy Spirit. It is not the Lord's plan that His Body be divided. Pope Benedict is the "Pope of Christian Unity". In his first Papal message he proclaimed, "Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master's supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22: 32). With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty."

He has placed the commitment to the full communion of the Church at the forefront of his Papacy. This is especially evident in his love, respect and repeated overtures toward our Orthodox brethren, whom we recognize as a full Church and whose priesthood and Sacraments we also recognize. I have written extensively of the warming of relations between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. His request for prayer Wednesday reveals the heart of a shepherd who understands the Divine Heart of the Good Shepherd. It also demonstrates the kind of humility and holiness which will unleash the power of the Holy Spirit. 

There has been a growing collaboration between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in efforts to slow the collapse of Christian influence in European culture. There have been other signs of the Spirit at work in pulling these ...

A draft document was drawn up for the commission's session last year, and the commission started to consider it but did not finish this process, as the Orthodox had a lot of objections to this text. We expect that the discussion in Vienna on the text of this document will also be quite intensive...Our delegation's goal is to make sure that this document reflects the Orthodox position and rules out any ambiguities, compromises and wrong interpretations of the patristic views on the bishop of Rome's ministering," the priest said.

While it is difficult to reach a consensus on this issue, "this theme should be discussed," because "this is what separates the Catholics and the Orthodox above all," he said. "It needs to be said that the Catholics did not agree to discuss this issue with the Orthodox [Church] for a long time, knowing how radical differences in its interpretation are. The fact that the late Pope John Paul II and then Pope Benedict XVI agreed that this issue be discussed by the commission is quite a benevolent step on the part of the Catholics toward the Orthodox [Church]," he said.

What is going on?  I suggest it is a movement of the Holy Spirit. It is not the Lord's plan that His Body be divided. Pope Benedict is the "Pope of Christian Unity". In his first Papal message he proclaimed, "Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master's supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22: 32). With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty."

He has placed the commitment to the full communion of the Church at the forefront of his Papacy. This is especially evident in his love, respect and repeated overtures toward our Orthodox brethren, whom we recognize as a full Church and whose priesthood and Sacraments we also recognize. I have written extensively of the warming of relations between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. His request for prayer Wednesday reveals the heart of a shepherd who understands the Divine Heart of the Good Shepherd. It also demonstrates the kind of humility and holiness which will unleash the power of the Holy Spirit. 

There has been a growing collaboration between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in efforts to slow the collapse of Christian influence in European culture. There have been other signs of the Spirit at work in pulling these ...

[BlueDragon]

Perfectly stated. Thank you

[daniel1212]

Despite the verbosity, the point remains.

[stfassisi]

the point remains.

There is no point other than you to try and cause divisiveness that does not exist today between the Eastern Orthodox and The Latin Church.

The EO's and Latin Church recognize "the two lungs" of East and West that builds up the Church of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

[daniel1212]

Rather than me trying to cause divisiveness that does not exist today between the Eastern Orthodox and The Latin Church, i documented it, and which division you cannot deny though you try.

And they are still divided despite commonalities, and the gushing of some priest about conciliatory attitudes will not negate that, and he admits the Orthodox had a lot of objections even to a draft document.

When the EOs accept universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, Immaculate Conception and other things then you can talk about divisiveness that does not exist, but until then you are imposing your desire upon reality, which is all too typical a Roman polemic.

[boatbums]

Brilliantly said! Thank you.

[stfassisi]

I can only imagine what type of person who lives in a negative realm of hope toward Christian unity’s heart must be?

Look in the mirror.

[daniel1212]

You have only posted one vain attempt to deny reality after another, while missing the point.

[Natural Law]

"Romish supremacy..."

When any post begins with archaic pejoratives and derogatory terms such as these it is a clear indication that what follows will be an echo of past anti-Catholic propaganda. It will not serve to advance a dialog or mutual respect. The issue at hand is whom do we trust to convey the Revealed Word. It is not a game of dueling authorities, but rather a contrasting of personal choices.

"I Trust" is the proper translation of the word "Credo" which is the affirmation of our Faith. When you look only to yourself and your reason for authority you reduce the Word from the divine to an object of human reason. By faith I trust that Jesus established His Church with Peter as the first Pope and entrusted to it a teaching authority independent of the errors, ambitions and vanities of mere men. I walk by faith, not by sight.

If you believe your own argument that all are endowed with the ability to independently interpret Scripture then why criticize or challenge the Catholic teaching on the interpretation of Scripture? If all are equally valid it must be accepted as as valid as any other.

Do you believe that it is not the sincerity and authenticity of my faith, but the accuracy and extent of my knowledge of the "correct" interpretations of Scripture that matters? How then do you know when you have learned sufficiently and what separates you from the Gnostics?

Peace be with you.

[boatbums]

Why you like to try and "stir the pot" on an issues like this is beyond me. I don't believe you understand the effort being made and progress between the EO's and Latins. You should to stick with your issues regarding protestantism since they are not anything close to the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Church in unity

Daniel1212 is not trying to "stir the pot" between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics - seeing as the pot was well stirred AND shaken over a thousand years ago over these EXACT points. What he is simply stating is that there REMAINS stark differences on these so-called infallible dogmas proclaimed by the Pope of Rome and which Daniel pointed out, are NOT agreed to this day. If you actually believe the Orthodox will accede to Rome on these points because they all want "unity", then you don't understand THEIR definition of "infallible" decrees. From the source The Fundamental Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Another fundamental belief of the Orthodox Church is the faith in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, Who became "incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and became man" (Nicene Creed) for our salvation. The Virgin Mary Theotokos gave birth to Jesus, Who is the only begotten Son of God. In the Orthodox Church, the Theotokos is highly honored, as expressed in praises recorded in the Scriptures with qualities mirrored in the Magnificat (cf. Luke 1:46 ff.). Despite the high honor and the highest admiration which the Orthodox Church bestows upon the Virgin Mary Theotokos, it does not teach either her immaculate conception or her bodily assumption into the heavens. The Church venerates the Theotokos as "holder of Him Who is illimitable...and infinite Creator."

Now, it is curious that it is these EXACT doctrines which are ex cathedra statements of the Pope using his charisma of infallibility. All Daniel is asserting, and which he has every right to as it is relevant to this discussion, is that such presumed gifts are NOT accepted by the whole of Christianity. It IS an issue that affects "Protestantism" and, thankfully, permission to discuss ANY issue on these forums is not the domain of Rome.

[BlueDragon]

First, you really should read carefully that which you, yourself give reply to, if mutual respect is what is desired. Speaking with you personally, I find extremely difficult, for you will not hear me, keep changing the subject, and my own words. Stuff like this;

If you believe your own argument that all are endowed with the ability to independently interpret Scripture then why criticize or challenge the Catholic teaching on the interpretation of Scripture? If all are equally valid it must be accepted as as valid as any other.

is something of a strawman, for the singular point was none other portion of the Church agreed/agrees with Rome as to the extent of her own self-description. East of her, and now West of her. Whatever happened to conciliar agreement? That which cannot be agreed to must not be adopted or hard pressed as singular truth relating to the Gospel (this principle being found in the Church from it's earliest times).

The "equally valid" part can only come into play when there is actual agreement among all (true Churches), besides not being what I argued at all, in the way you yourself put it. Wow, just look at all the trouble was caused by those guys so many years ago straining to grab the gold ring of unquestionable supremacy, aiming to pass the same down to their own heirs, to hold it within the Latin Church alone. Wow. just wow...look at how much we can and do agree upon is not even much spoken of due to this previous overreach. For how can it? Unless all submit passively to RCC decrees, which of course is what she wants, and basically, continually demands.

The point is, it is not "I" whom am "independently interpreting" one key scripture. As was demonstrated, as has been linked with one central theme across numerous posts and even threads. St.Augustine saw it the same way, as to how Peter came to "know".

Telling us all now we are "privately interpreting" when all others arrive at similar understanding of that one key verse, is an impossibility. That Rome alone see herself as sole heir even still, claiming not only authority over her own portion, but of all the Lord's flock for all time, can indeed supplant the One true Shepherd. Yet if you, yourself and others can indeed find that One true one there, and hear Him, then I will not argue they or you do not.

Infallible teaching authority you say...It is infallible when it rests solidly upon the revealed word, as was understood in the Church at the very beginning, by what was understood and taught by the entire Church, but now is seemingly argued to much depend upon from what precise geographical headquarters can alone lay full claim to this infallible teaching authority with the implications having no real end of "authority" for it is too easily falsely extended (by man) resulting in having no end. History proves, history shows what gross offenses can occur when there is no limit.

All of which leads again to the issue of identification, of just who we are, and who the Church is, for we are not Him, and He is not us.

Shalom

[Southack]

"the inevitable and plain conclusion is that the mark is something enforced by the church"

Nope. The church has no power over everyone on the planet buying and selling. Not today. Not deep back in history. Not in the future.

Watch for a mark that allows the entire world to buy and sell, and that prevents the rest without it from buying and selling.

This is not localized, it is global. Universal. No exceptions.

That's your key to seeing Revelations unfold. Buying and selling gets banned for not having the same mark worldwide.

[Ezekiel]

Watch for a mark that allows the entire world to buy and sell, and that prevents the rest without it from buying and selling.

Watch for a character trait that allows the entire world to buy and sell, and that prevents the rest without that character trait from buying and selling.

[Yosemitest]

... the inevitable and plain conclusion is that the mark is something enforced by the church ... '
" Nope. The church has no power over everyone on the planet buying and selling.
Not today. Not deep back in history. Not in the future."

Have you not studied the Council of Nicea in CE 325 ?

Have you not studied The Inquisition ?

Torture during the Inquisition - instruments like those above were used to elicit "confessions" from "heretics" and backsliding "converts."	Auto da Fe - Inquisition victims being led to their doom in procession. After the "act of faith," the victims were burned to death.

Do you even know what the word anathema means ?

Have you not studied Blue Laws ?

Just how young are you?

The local Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 363, passed this decree:
"Christians must not JUDAIZE by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, resting rather on Sunday.
But, if any be found to be Judaizing, let them be declared anathema from Christ."

The church caused them to be killed.
When the church branded one "anathema" (a heretic), the state police of the Empire began torturing him.
Unless he recanted, he was tortured until he died!

Laws became so strict no man could hold a job, or engage in business, unless he worked on Saturday and rested on Sunday. And the world will be so geared that it will be almost impossible for one to "buy or sell" except he receive this MARK OF THE BEAST!

This is the ONLY COMMANDMENT which was altered by the Roman Empire! In Daniel 7:25 we read the prophecy of this BEAST and the little horn (the political government of the church) rising up, which was to think to CHANGE "times and laws." That is, change God's LAW in respect to TIME -- the time for the Sabbath!

[Yosemitest]

You mean this character ?

Remember:
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way,
for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs
and the man of LAWLESSNESS is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped,
so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?
And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
For the secret power of LAWLESSNESS is already at work;
but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.
And then the LAWLESS ONE will be revealed,
whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth
and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
The coming of the LAWLESS ONE will be in accordance with the work of Satan
displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
For this reason God sends them a POWERFUL DELUSION
so that THEY WILL BELIEVE THE LIE
and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth
but have delighted in wickedness.

[Yosemitest]

One additional reference you might want to consider.

The Council of Laodicea, by DouglasKC, Tuesday, January 08, 2008

[Ezekiel]

Yup, that character that embodies and embraces lawlessness, deceit, corruption, and theft while mocking the rule of law, truth, kindness, and decency.

How many are already given plenty of Obamacash to buy, or who sell to those who pay with Obamacash?

"If you are foolish enough to answer truthfully on an application for state assistance, do not despair. The state has thought of that, and does not discriminate against the foolish; you will likely be given multiple opportunities to lie, and you will eventually get your fair share. Always remember that it is best to consult your state and federal poverty guidelines before you subjectively determine what you can or cannot afford. The numbers do not lie, even if you have to lie to fall within them. "

I Quit (How to scam welfare in 2012)

The Obamanation of desolation, standing where it ought not (in America...).

[Cvengr]

bttt

[daniel1212]

It is also of note that the EOs also differ on the filioque in the Nicene Creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and instead contend that He proceeds from the Father only (cf. John 15:26).

As your source states,

When the church in the West inserted the “filioque” phrase into the Creed, this innovation precipitated the Great Schism of the Undivided Church. The “filioque” phrase is an error. It is not found in the Scripture. It was not believed by the Undivided Church for eight centuries, including the church in the West. It introduces a strange teaching of a double procession of the Holy Spirit and refers to two origins of the Spirit’s existence, thus denying the unity of the Godhead.

Although this was a point of great contention, the debate was not simply about the orthodoxy of the doctrine but about the authority of the western church and its pope to define what was and was not orthodox, and thus the nature of the church.

There is a lot of history here, but my point was that under sola ecclesia in which the church is the supreme authority (and which groups as the LDs also operate out of), then there is also division, and substantial disagreement is realized, and not simply under SS, while in Scripture, establishment of authority is based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not on historical descent and infallibly defining yourself as infallible.