A "Simple" Response - Part 1

The following was a comment left to me by "Simple":

So I have a seriouse question for you, and others....Wolves in Sheeps clothing huh?. In the book of revelation they talk of scarlet and purple...isnt most of the etire for the pope, and the vatican...scarlet and purple. Revelation speaks, of pearls...and gold...Isnt the entire roman holy empire...FULL of pearls...and Gold?...please I want you to look something up...I pray and I only want to save lives...log onto Youtube...and look up "bibleortradition"...and then search for revelation 17...theres part 1 and part 2. I seen them and was amazed. Also look into Ash Wensday. Word must be spread. If you dont have it...download it. For your search for God...Download it. Christ was a simple man, a humble man...who taught the word of God...but wasnt part of a religion, or church...with traditions, and rituals...Would he have loved the wealth that is kept, and wasted? Love is all that matters...please, look this up. If you do post a blog. ill read it, then give you my email. I have a purpose.

With all due respect, the videos you mention are so ridiculous and anti-Catholic, they made me want to vomit. It is clear that those who put these videos together know nothing about actual Catholic teaching and they are ignorant to Scripture and how it's been historically understood. Additionally, some of their assumptions are completely laughable... I had to just shake my head in amazement that people actually buy into this crap! It seems to be merely a regurgitation of Dave Hunt's garbage.

But, this is not to say that I can't provide an intelligent response to the accusations made. The real question is, will it even matter to Simple if I do? If I can show that what was presented is nonsense, will Simple stop being an anti-Catholic on a mission to save us from the "Whore of Babylon" or will Simple continue in blindness to save that which is not lost?

Just to be clear, the passage in question is Revelation 17:1-6, which states:

"1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."

Of course, like many of us have heard like a broken record, in the video, the "Roman Catholic Church" is accused of being the Whore referenced here.

For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to address all the points made in the video, but will address the ones brought up by Simple in his/her comment.

Clothed in "purple and red": For one thing, these colors are worn to convey a particular meaning: purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. One must wonder why, according to the anti-Catholic view presented, these colors are literally applied to clergy vestments (which even high Protestants wear, don't they?) while the woman symbolizes a city. Huh? Second, WHITE is actually the dominant color of the Church, used with other colors and second to white would be likely be green (since that is what is worn the majority of the year). But, regardless, one forgets that God also COMMANDED that these colors be used for priests' vestments (Ex 39:1-2): And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the LORD commanded Moses. And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. (See also Exodus 28:4-8, 15, 33; 39:1-8, 29)

If this was commanded and pleasing to God then, I see no reason why he would not be pleased with this today. Logically then, the mere wearing of garments in such colors is not "evil" nor does it mean that the Catholic Church is partaking in something that cannot please God. To take the passage in Revelation 17 and apply it to the Catholic Church at the ignorance of other passages which more accurately portray what we're doing is simply not logical.

Pearls and gold: The problem with this argument is that the Vatican, regardless of how "wealthy" it may have been in the past, operates as an independent country... typically in a deficit with a budget the size of the archdiocese of Chicago. And, just to make you aware as well, the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Her money comes from the faithful in their tithes and offerings and she is a steward, not an owner, of that wealth. Plus, to say such a thing is a bit hypocritical when looking at the wealth of Protestant leaders like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. What do they do with their wealth?

So, what exactly is the point in raising this argument?

Part 2 coming soon!