Calling the Pope 'Antichrist' has traditionally been the prerogative of Bible-believing Christians, but now some of the Vatican's own priests are beginning to see the light. Bertrand Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Pius X, says that Rome "has turned into the seat of the Antichrist, a dependency of Hell"! 1 so has the Middle East been playing host to the 'Vicar of Christ' or to the 'Antichrist'?
The contrived euphoria about the significance of the Pope's Holy Land visit as a mission to heal the complex of Jewish-Vatican-Muslim relations has served as a clever disguise for the real goal of his travels – the rejuvenation and promotion of the Roman Catholic Church and its false dogmas at a time of galloping scandal and secularism in the hierarchy and subsequent disillusionment among its members. The Secretary to the Papal Nuncio in Israel, 'Monsignor' Eugene Nugent, admitted this very precise purpose of the visit: "The trip must be seen within the context of the year 2000, which is a year of renewal."2
The Pope sees the new millennium as a time of spiritual renewal in which he claims the Roman Catholic Church is returning to the ethos, values and doctrines of Christ; but his speech at the Holocaust Memorial on March 24 produced no evidence whatsoever of a shift towards Biblical teaching, nor did his so-called "apology" accept or show any sign of penance for sins committed by his Church. Semper eadem! He still postured as "Bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter", and persisted in assuring his audience that 'Holy Mother Church' was "motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love".3
Using his fifteen Holy Land venues, which he called "the history of our salvation", as props for teaching "reconciliation" with Jews and Muslims, John Paul II was careful to refer – but in very vague terms, of course – to the Bible, mentioning historical (but not doctrinal) passages about Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus. He asked 30,000 worshippers in Amman to contemplate "the origins of our faith" while reaching out to believers of "the other great religions which flourish here"; but what fellowship has Rome with the Bible?
Having regularly burned the Bible, Rome has also had the hypocrisy of continually appealing to it – parallel, of course, to her appeal to tradition and the early fathers – and of maintaining that the Bible was on her side. Yet even her own Bible, in which ironically all the major doctrines of Protestantism can be found, contains not a single one of those peculiar to the Church of Rome; and many of the legends of her own Apocrypha, to which she still clings, are amongst those which in past ages she openly condemned.
How, then, can the word of the Pope be the Word of God, or the journey of the Pope to the Holy Land be a journey to the renewal of the Christianity of the Bible? To this very day Rome has never repealed the oft-quoted stringent prohibition of the Bible in the Index of the Council of Trent – a rule confirmed even more rigorously by Clement VIII in 1596 and by Benedict XVI in 1845. She has never denounced the bull of 1816 in which Pius VII described the circulation of the Scriptures as "a crafty device by which the very foundations of religion are undermined, a pestilence which must be remedied and abolished". She has never rebuked Cardinal Wiseman, who, in his book Catholic Doctrine of the Bible (p. 26), announced with characteristic arrogant hypocrisy that "indiscriminate reading of the Bible […] has transformed a mild and promising race [the British] into a pack of lazy, immoral infidels" (hardly a judgement commensurate with Britain's unparalleled rise to greatness and prosperity in the wake of the Reformation).
How, then, can we account for the seeming encouragement of John Paul II to remember Biblical history and renew the spirit of Biblical values? The answer is that wherever such a policy has occurred there have been special circumstances to account for it. Rome has always been wise enough to know how to accommodate herself to circumstances which she cannot alter. Therefore, in 'heretical' countries, a degree of liberty is permitted and sanctioned which would not be tolerated where her priests had supreme power. This is the case in all nominally Protestant and non-Roman Catholic countries, and, of course, in the Jewish State of Israel and the Muslim countries of the Middle East.
Forget, therefore, the subtle Biblical allusions! The Vatican's Middle East mission has nothing to do with the renewal of Biblical doctrine. For example, the main leg of the Papal 'pilgrimage' to the foundation sites of Christianity was preceded by a visit to Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Ten Commandments, but the second of them Rome has intentionally obliterated from her dogma. The Holy Land jaunt was never intended to be the advertised return to Biblical values: it was simply another stage in the Pope's struggle to achieve world-wide religious and political domination by an apostate Church, not only over Protestant "heretics", but over Jews, Muslims and all other religions as well. Conjuring up a false unity of the Bible, the Talmud and the Koran in what the Pope called "our common salvation" is henceforth to be the chief ingredient of his recipe for a unified world-wide pagan religion dominated by Rome.
H. Grattan Guinness has well said: "Romanism is simply the old Roman paganism revived under Christian names. Romanism and paganism bear to each other the most exact and extraordinary resemblance."4 In one of the most telling examples of the occult nature of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, while on a visit to India in 1998, allowed his forehead to be marked by a pagan Shiva priestess.5 (In the Book of Revelation, the False Prophet, the leader of the new global religion of Antichrist, causes all people in the world to receive a mark, either in the forehead or in the right hand.) Then on May 14, 1999, during an audience with Patriarch Raphael I of Iraq, the Pope laid the foundation of his outreach to Muslims by bowing to and kissing the Koran, much to the disquiet of the New England Catholic News, which accused him of "an heretical act of apostasy" in giving "official credence to a pagan religion"!6 Whatever became of the Second Commandment? This paganism the Pope merely continued in March, 2000, when he deposited a written prayer in a crevice of the Wailing Wall in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.
The truth is: Rome believes that all she has to do is sanctify a pagan practice and it automatically becomes 'Christian'; but where Christ is, the Pope cannot be; and where the Pope is, there is no Christ.
- Letter No. 56 as reported in Regina Coeli Report, May, 1999, No. 89.
- Jerusalem Post, March 29, 2000.
- Jerusalem Post, March 24, 2000.
- H. Grattan Guinness: Romanism and the Reformation, 1995, LNF Books.
- Former Catholics for Christ Newsletter, January/February/March, 1998.
- The New England Catholic News, Summer, 1999, No. 2, p. 2.)