Make your own free website on

For reasons that will soon become evident, I have titled this reply, " Rome admits to being "Babylon", and the "House of Satan" -- The Saga of Dr. Bacchiocchi's Defence of the Papal Tiara "knows not limits."


I will deal with Rome's recent written admission of being "Babylon" and "the house of Satan" etc. last. So stay with me on this. You won't be disappointed. Nor, I hope will Dr. B. and the other SDA scholars.


Yes, you read correctly, Rome has expressly stated the city of Rome was once called Babylon, by the Apostles. She also admitted, more recently, on several occasions, to being "the house of Satan" and with "satanic rituals" being performed in the Vatican. Talk about explosive admissions of guilt? It's all in this one, at the end. I know this sounds fantastic, but when you read who is saying it you will be even more stunned. Even Pope Paul admitted it was true!!  Now, don't jump to the end to see this, or you will miss all the good stuff in between.


Now, turning to Dr. B's latest newsletter.  Dr B's statements are in blue, and my replies are all in black.

His statements are in response to my email of April 13, 2006.


This response will only address the salient and the more noteworthy portions of Dr Samuele Bacchiocchi's latest

ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER NUMBER 146: "The Saga of the Adventist Papal Tiara: Part 2"



            But the issue we are addressing here is the denials of Our Sunday Visitor of the absence of any inscription on the TIARA, but not on the MITRE. This subtle distinction is interpreted by some Adventists as a veiled Catholic admission of the presence of the inscription Vicarius Filii Dei  inside the MITRE, but not inside the TIARA.


Dr B. then responds to some of my contentions and again admits that the Catholic Church's statement in Our Sunday Visitor 1917 was not about the inscription in the Mitre, but rather about the Tiara.


He (Dr. B) then says:
         The most eloquent presenter of this view, is an English Adventist lawyer (Barrister), Phil Moore. As a professional lawyer, Moore makes what  appears to be a very convincing case for the inscription being inside the MITRE, rather than inside the TIARA. This would mean that our Adventist church has been looking for the notorious inscription in the wrong place. Moore writes: "There was never any retraction or denial in the September 16, 1914 issue of  Our Sunday Visitor (as regards Vicarius Filii Dei being inscribed on the inside of the pope's Miter [English spelling])'!! The statement . . . merely states that Vicarius Filii Dei was never inscribed inside the Pope's Tiara, (not that it was never inscribed on the inside the pope's Miter)!"
        "This as you must realize is hugely significant, as the Tiara and the Miter are completely different head pieces. As you know the pope's Tiara is a triple jewel-studded crown, worn usually at Coronation or other very special occasions. While the Miter on the other hand, is a open-top pointed hat, that the pope wears more commonly on official business."
        Moore believes that this is an "entirely new evidence in this important debate."  For him, this proves that "The Papacy did not retract the admission of [Our Sunday Visitor] 1914 about the Pope's mitre (miter) having the inscription, Vicarius Filii Dei, it merely issued a new and different statement denying that the Pope's Tiara (not Miter) had the said inscription!!" What all of this means, according to Moore, is that our Adventist church has been searching for the inscription in the wrong place. If they were allowed to examine the INSIDE of the papal MITRES, chances are that they will likely find the notorious inscription.
Problems with the "Mitre Arguments"
        Moore must be credited for noting a detail that has escaped most readers. But in my view there are three major problems with his arguments. First, none of the four issues of Our Sunday Visitor speak of the notorious inscription being located INSIDE the MITRE or INSIDE the TIARA.  They speak of the "letters inscribed IN the Pope's mitre," and that Adventists "have never shown that the title 'Vicarius Filii Dei' is really inscribed UPON the Pope's tiara."  The terms IN and UPON hardly suggest that the inscription is found INSIDE the Mitre or INSIDE the Tiara. It makes no sense for the pope to hide such title inside his hats. If it is not meant to be seen, then there is no reason to inscribe it inside any head piece in the first place.


Now the above analysis of Dr. B. is half-baked. For even if "UPON" does no suggest "INSIDE", surely "IN" does!

IN connotes within or something that is not open to full view as it is "IN" and not "On" or "UPON".


If I say, for example, I have an illegal weapon in my house, would the police not be amazingly dim to look outside my house or ON the roof or ON the balcony etc. etc. "In" means inside of--on any sensible analysis. But then not everything Dr. B has said in this debate stands up to analysis.


Dr B. then proffers under point sub-heading: "Are the Measurements of the Holy City to be taken Literally?" that 666 is not literal!!


Here is his splendid reasoning: "the text does not say that "the number [666] is the added numerical value of the letters of a name."  Instead, it says: "the number of the beast . . .  is a human number" (Rev 13:18; RSV) ["number of a man" in the KJV]. The phrase suggests, as stated in the Sabbath School, that "'it is the number of humanity;' that is, of humans separated from God." In other words, the meaning of the cryptic number must be found, not in the numerical value of a name, but in the human significance of 666, that is, the human refusal to proceed to seven, to give glory to God and find rest in Him...


Now this is so patently diabolic a distortion of the text (which says "count the number of the beast") that I will not respond to this egregious analysis by Dr. B, except to say that even the Catholic Jesuit Bible, the Douay gives the following comment on Rev. 13:18 regarding the need to literal count the number 666: "The numeral letters of his name shall make up this number." Now, no doubt Dr. B is going to tell us that he and other SDA scholars regards the writers of the Douay as "ignorant" or perhaps mistaken. But for those who care to know better, see footnote 43 on page 619 of the official SDA book, Daniel and the Revelation, for the correct understanding of the well-know practice of representing name by numbers in Biblical times.Moreover, if the number 666 was not to be taken as a literal number we should count, then God was using loose and redundant language in telling John in verse 17 that "no man might buy or sell, save he that had... the number of his name."  


If this number is merely mankind's rebellion (or as D. B. says, "humans separated from God" "the human refusal to proceed to seven, to give glory to God and find rest in Him...") how on earth can we be forced to receive this number? In deed, why do we need to be "caused" (verse 16) to receive it, when we already have it by our mere "refusal to proceed to seven, to give glory to God and find rest in Him"? Now this "proceed to seven" remark is so banal that I marvel. Don't you?


It is then even more ludicrous to say that "his number [rebellion or separateness from God] is 666"!  If, as Dr. B. and his fellow scholars say, 666 represents mankind's rebellion or humans being separated from God then 666 applied to all of mankind from Adam. Why then has this number never been used in the Bible before, apart from one place in the Old Testament (where it is merely the number of the sons of a certain family in Israel)? But the final proof that rejects Dr B's argument is this. Revelation 15: 2 says, ".. I saw as it were... them that had gotten victory over the number of his name stand on the sea of glass... " Now could someone tell me how in the context of Rev. 15:2 the number 666 could be understood to mean rebellion or "humans separated from God"? And why does it repeat again the same phrase,"the number of his name"? Whose name did they get victory over? Mankind's name? Mankind's "separateness from God"? Of course not. See how ludicrous this becomes when analysed but a little? All such attempts to manipulate the English language must fail.


I move on.


Dr. B says that "This traditional view has largely been abandoned by Adventist scholars".


Well, who do you believe, egotistical men or the inspired humble servant of God, E.G. White? Scripture wisely says, "Believe his prophets, so shall ye be established." Perhaps that is why, and I pose this proposition with the greatest of respect, many of our Church members and sadly our G.C. Leaders too are getting into such a muddle about this SDA teaching--the scholarship of men? Nevertheless, as the great German reformer, Martin Luther, once said "Lord, I cannot eat man's dung" (he was alluding to Ezekiel 4:12).


Dr. B's response to my other argument of April 13, 2006 about the G.C. doing this through the backdoor without first putting it to a vote at a General Conference session, Dr. B. says: 
        This view is best expressed by an English Adventist attorney (Barrister), Philip Moore. He sent me several lengthy messages, where he articulates his convictions with clarity and persuasion. He writes: "If the G.C. Leadership believe that they have such a cast-iron argument against the SDA Church's continued application of the title Vicarius Filii Dei to the Pope's Mitre then why are they so coy of putting it to a vote at a General Conference Session?. . .
        "The G.C's apparent attempt to alter long standing church teaching/doctrine by the backdoor-via your Newsletters and by a sneaky paragraph in the June 2002 Adult Sabbath School Lesson, is not a responsible, open or fair way of dealing with such an important matter. This  approach is very Catholic! -i.e. doctrinal changes from the top to the laity, without debate, consultation or given them the opportunity to have any say in the matter."
        "If they [G. C. leaders] wish to change the Church's stance on this matter, to be transparent, and courageous and [they should] do this the proper way. That is, [they should] bring the matter before the World Church at a General Conference Session, and have an open and fully informed debate and then vote on it. Rather than this back-door attempt at changing our major teachings-rightly or wrongly. To put it to the World Church at a G.C. Session would be good and accountable leadership."

        This argument appears very logical, but it has two major flaws. First, it mistakenly assumes that the application of 666 to Vicarius Filii Dei, has been an official teaching of the Adventist church. Second, it ignores the repeated warning issued by church leaders against this interpretation. 
Dr. B then says:

        "The Adventist church has never officially taught that the number of the Beast (666) is to be found in the pope's title Vicarius Filii Dei, inscribed in the papal tiara. Unfortunately, this teaching has become popular in spite of several warning issued against it by the General Conference." 


Well, I was not even going to bother to respond to that last statement, as it is clearly false, in fact it is seriously disingenuous of him to say this. But I will respond. Now lets deal with facts not fabrications. That last statement by Dr. B, above, is just as false as those of the Catholic writers who say that Vicarius Filii Dei was never and official title of the popes. The belief that 666 applied to the popes is (or was for many years) an official SDA teaching, as much as Granose once was SDA--so much so that it (i.e. Vicarius Filii Dei =666) made its way into the book Daniel and the Revelation (pages 619-623) published by none other than Review and Herald!!! That's all I think is worth saying in response to Dr. B's latest efforts.


Well, permit me to say one more thing about Dr. B's expositions on 666. They are, with the greatest of respect, all absolutely and utterly irrelevant. As whether or not 666 is or has ever been inscribed inside the popes' mitre(s) is of no consequence whatsoever. This is because many, many popes used Vicarius Filii Dei as their official title-- It was even INCORPORATED INTO ROMAN CATHOLIC CANON LAW and endorsed by POPE GREGORY XIII-- for a quick reference see p. 622 of Daniel and the Revelation.  What is more OFFICIAL in Catholicism than CANON LAW? Sorry for the block capitals, but I think Dr B. and the General Conference need something to drive this point home. So, whether or not the popes used it (officially or unofficially) it still adds to 666, be it or be it not on the "inside", "upon", "behind", "underneath" or "above" the Mitres or Tiaras. I have already dealt with the spurious view that the number is not to be taken or counted literally, and so this case is closed as far as I am concerned.


Now, I am sure that most of my readers will agree that this Vicarius Filii Dei--666 debate has become rather sterile. All the arguments have now been deployed on either side. So from hereonafter I am going to take this discussion to another level.  So here is the start:




I invite you to open your Bible to I Peter 5:13 for an amazing revelation (note the use of the word "Babylon" in that verse).  Now look at page 165, para. 2 of your "Seventh-day Adventists Believe - 27 Fundamental Doctrines". This as you know is the official statement of SDA beliefs.  


Please permit me at this point to remind you that virtually everything that is quoted hereafter is from a high- ranking Catholic source, with full citations/footnotes.


Now read this most incredible statement by the former Jesuit priest, Professor and ex-Vatican diplomat, Malachi Martin:


it became unarguable [to Pope Paul II] that now during this papacy, the Roman Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who worshipped Satan… of bishops and priests who sodomized boys and each other; of nuns who performed the “Black Rites” of Wicca,… including Sundays and Holy Days… were committed and permitted at holy Altars... Sacrilegious actions and rites were not only performed on Christ’s Altars, but had the connivance or at least the tacit permission of certain Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops[1]


Malachi Martin then refers to “the inordinate power and influence of that network.”[2] In other words he is intimating to us that these “Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops” not only exert considerable influence in the Catholic Church, but also wield, in his words, “inordinate power”.Could it be that this power is that the Jesuits, and their various knights? After all, who wield more power and influence in the Catholic Church than the Jesuits and their current Superior GeneralJesuit Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach sj? No other Order within the Catholic Church has such influence or power. The Jesuit General controls even the popes, as every pope must have a Jesuit as his Confessor. Indeed how many pope who opposed the Jesuits had a short life thereafter?


And in case we thought that the book Windswept House was fiction and not to be taken seriously, Malachi Martin says much the same thing (i.e. Satan’s enthronement in his Church) in his other book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (1981). This is a non-fiction historical book that sets out the Vatican’s geo-political view and concerns. In that book he wrote:

Paul (Pope Paul VI) realized in his last two years that something unimaginably ominous had been moving inexorably toward them, was already in their midst, and had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. “The smoke of Satan has entered the church, is around the altar,” he [the Pope] remarked somberly. By 1978 and in the last few weeks of his own life, Paul knew that the rumbling tension of his world had grown to a roaring, and that around him there was a conflagration feeding on the dry wood and the underbrush of the centuries-old kingdom.[3]


Again, to the best of my knowledge neither the Vatican, the Pope, nor any high official within the Catholic Church have ever denied any of Malachi Martin’s statement (at least not while he was alive). Nor was he ex-communicated or reprimanded by the Vatican or the Pope for making these statements. Is that admission by silence?


In any event, they could hardly reasonably deny Malachi Martin’s statements as true, since Catholic Archbishop, Emmanuel Milingo, an exorcist and the author of the book, Face to Face With the Devil, made a similar admission in a speech entitled, “Satanists at work in the Vatican. His speech was given at the Fatima 2000 International Congress on World Peace, held in Rome on November 18 to November 23 1996. Archbishop Milingo was addressing an international audience of bishops, priests, nuns, and laity. He told the audience:


“The devil in the Catholic Church is so protected

now that he is like an animal protected by the government; put on a game reserve that outlaws anyone, especially hunters, from trying to capture or kill it. The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil-hunter in the Church -- the exorcist. ... ” 


When asked, "Are there men of the Curia (the administrative government of the Catholic Church) who are followers of Satan?" Milingo responded, “Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy because I am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go.” In other words he was not prepared to speak about his superiors. However, and of some significance, Archbishop Milingo cited a papal statement to back up his assertions: “Paul VI said that ‘the smoke of Satan had entered into the Vatican,’ ”  [4] he told his audience.So even Pope Paul VI admitted that Satan had taken up his residence in the Vatican. Nor should we be surprised at all by this, as Satan has every right to reclaim his "seat" and "power" which he "gave unto" the Papacy (see last part of Rev. 13:2).


And as if to buttress Bishop Milingo’s revelations, in the same “The Fatima Crusader” article, Malachi Martin (before his death in 1999), who you will recall, was a Vatican diplomat for three popes, was quoted as saying:


“Archbishop Milingo is a good bishop and his contention that there are satanists in Rome is

completely correct. Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years

is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates[5] in the court of St. Peter

in Rome.”


Another Catholic, retired Italian priest, Msgr. Luigi Marinelli, also claimed in his non-fiction book, Gone With the Wind at the Vatican, that Satanic rituals have been performed within the walls of the Vatican.


And yet we did not have single word of remonstrance or denial from the Vatican or the Pope. Surely this inexplicable silence is to be wondered at? Especially in the face of such claims/admissions by high ranking priest and a Vatican diplomat that satanism and witchcraft is being practiced in the Vatican (for over "35 years").


Then we had the much earlier statement in 1846, from the most revered entity in Catholicism, ‘Mary’:


Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist. The Church will be in eclipse.”

- “Our Lady” at La Salette, September 19, 1846


Lose faith? She (Rome) never had it. One cannot help but recall these words found in Revelation 18:2:


“And he [the angel] cried mightily with a strong voice, saying Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold [house] of every foul spirit….”

What then are we to make of all these most thunderous revelations from the very bowels of Rome? Could the warning from ‘Mary’ at La Salette, and at Fatima, the warnings of Pope Paul VI; and the claims of Archbishop Milingo, and of Professor Malachi Martin all be wrong or incorrect? Remember these men were faithful and active Catholics (Pope Paul VI was the head of the Church). And not least, what are we to make of the acknowledgment by the Catholic Church that the worst pope of the Dark Ages, Benedict IX, “dabbled in witchcraft and satanism””[6]? It is perhaps curious too that Cardinal Ratzinger chose the name “Benedict” for himself when he became Pope?

More stunningly, what are we to think of the statement in the November 15, 1914 and again in the April 18, 1915, issues of Our Sunday Visitor, where it was proudly admitted that the Mitre of Pope Benedict XV had the Latin inscription of the word, which added to the number 666?

But perhaps, the most interesting statement about the nature of the Vatican comes from one of the Catholic Church’s most illustrious lights—the eminent theologian and priest, Cardinal Gibbons, who in seeking to argue for the Apostolic successions of the popes tell us that there is:


“... intrinsic evidence of St. Peter's first Epistle, [and] the testimony of his immediate successors in ministry... all concur in fixing the See [or bishopric] of Peter in Rome. “Babylon,” from which Peter addresses his first Epistle, is understood to refer to Rome--the word Babylon being symbolic of the corruption then prevailing in the city of the Caesars [i.e. Rome]”.[7]


That Cardinal Gibbons was right, is seen from the fact that Peter wrote from a place called “Babylon” (see I Peter 5:13), which even the "SDA 27 Fundamentals" (page 165) teaches to be true. Thus Rome was called  Babylon long after the ancient Kingdom of Babylon (or Babylonia) had been destroyed. The number of ancient Babylon was 666. So we see how 666 again applies to modern Babylon. But I digress.  I am done with 666.


Now if as Rome admits, the ancient city of Rome was called “Babylon” because of “the corruption then prevailing in the city of the Caesars”, what was she called when the very titles, vestments, religion, temples and vices of the Caesars were taken over wholesale by the Roman Pontiffs? Is not the head of the Roman Church called Pontifex Maximus, and is he not still seated at Rome—that "great city" that once ruled the kings of the world for over 1260 years? What other city is as great? Had such a long reign? Or exerted so much power over the nations and leaders of Europe, and large tracts of America, such as Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Argentina, etc., etc.?


And what is she to be called today, when her own archbishops, popes (e.g. Paul VI) and high-ranking insiders say that “Satanic rituals have been performed within the walls of the Vatican”, that "witchraft" is common even on Holy days and that “satanic rites” were “committed and permitted at holy Altars” with the "connivance of "Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops"? And the Pope knew all about it and did absolutely nothing.  


Now, if the city of Rome was called “Babylon” by the Apostle Peter in his letter (I Peter 5:13), then it is reasonable to assume that the Apostle John who penned the book of Revelation would also have known that Rome was called Babylon—after all if there were Christian churches in Babylon John would not have been ignorant of that fact. As such it is also reasonable to conclude that when John wrote in Revelation 16:19; 17:5,18: Babylon the Great”, “Mystery Babylon”, “that Great city” and “great Babylon” that would “reign over the kings of the earth” he was thereby referring to a place known to him—the great city of the Caesars—the “Eternal” city of Rome. Indeed, Rome is the only city of its kind in the entire world that exists today.


What this means is that the Anti-Christ power of which John speaks so forcibly and woefully was to have its “seat” in Rome and remain at Rome until the end of time—or its destruction.  This system would also be a “great “political power, for John says it would “reign over the kings of the earth.  It was also to have a “Mystery” religion, which all men would be required to accept (Rev. 13:15-17); and it would persecute those who refused to accept its religion. So much so that John described her as being “drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of... martyrs”. The culprit here could not be clearer. John is describing a persecuting power against “saints” or Christians—the Inquisition perhaps? The “saints” and “martyrs” being the Christians, who were burnt at the stake, stretched on the rack or sawn asunder.” And lets not forget about the many non-Christian victims of the Inquisitions and other crusades.


It seems too, that by his reference to Babylon’s “Mystery” religion, it would not be too absurd to say that the liturgy of the Catholic Church and the many occult Orders—which  are intimately linked to her—like Jesuitism, Templarism, Masonry, and Johannism etc.—indeed make “Mystery” a most fitting description of the cornucopia of occult beliefs presided over by the Roman Pontiffs.


Rome is nothing if she is not the very incarnation of that ancient dominion called Babylon.


As I end this email permit me to quote from two of the most illustrious priests, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, and Cardinal John Henry Newman, in that order. Cardinal Manning (a faithful Catholic priest of the highest rank) wrote:


Now, a system like this [the Roman Church] is so unlike anything human, it has upon it notes, tokens, marks so altogether supernatural, that men now acknowledge it to be either Christ or Antichrist. There is no alternative between these extremes.... The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or Kingdom of the Son of God.[8]


O.K., which one is she then Cardinal Manning?-- is she "the masterpiece of Satan or Kingdom of the Son of God? What kind of Church would teach that the world must revere its leader as: “God on Earth”; that teaches, “the veneration of holy images is permitted”; and that “the veneration of relics of the Saints images, or the remains of the bodies of the Saints, is also permitted”? [9]


Judge for yourself.


And what saith the great Cardinal John Henry Newman? Here the words of this most of illustrious of English converts to the Catholic Church: … either the Church of Rome is the house of God or the house of Satan; there can be no middle ground” she is either “the Kingdom of evil or the Kingdom of God's enemy.”[10]


Of a truth it must be said,“Iniquitas mentita est sibi”“Iniquity hath lied to itself.”


What more can we say in response to all these priestly and Pontifical revelations of Rome? Again we must recall an old Catholic-Latin phrase, Roma locuta est, causa finite est (“Rome has spoken, the case is closed”. [11]


Feel free to copy this to all and everyone.


[1] Windswept House: A Vatican Novel, pp. 492-3, (1990) [Emphasis supplied].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church p. 278, (1981) [Emphasis supplied]. That books credits Martin as follows: “Malachi Martin served three popes as diplomat and spy, speaks seventeen languages, is a renowned Biblical scholar and a professor at Rome's Pontifical Biblical Institute. He helped translate the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

[4] Archbishop Milingo, reported in the Winter 1997 issue of “The Fatima Crusader”, a conservative pro-Marian Catholic newsletter that hosted the Fatima 2000 Congress and in the March 3, 1997 issue of The New American. Milingo’s work as an exorcist is mentioned in London Telegraph, 2/7/99.

The Vatican has since excommunicated Milingo from the Church. But not Malachi Martin. One was just an Archbishop the other too influential and knowledgeable about Vatican secrets to take on while he was alive.

[5] The Jesuits perhaps? They do take a devilish oath.

[6] The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (1981), ibid, p.132. Interestingly, the title of this book seems to have borrowed words from Revelation 18:2: “Babylon is fallen… ”, except that instead of “Babylon” he uses the words “the Roman Church”.

[7] James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 87 111th printing, Published by TAN Books and Publishers, INC., P.O. Box 424, Rockford, Illinois 61105, Copyright 1876 by the John Murphy Company, and 1980 by TAN Books, ISBN 0-89555-158-6.

[8] Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Fourfold Sovereignty of God, second edition (London: Burns, Oates & Company, 17, 18 Portman Street, & 63 Paternoster Row, 1872), pp. 171-172. Archbishop Manning was elevated to Cardinal in 1875. (See fuller version of this text from this book at:

[9] James B. Kirker, The Mission Book, (New York: Missionary Fathers of St. Paul, 1861), p. 277-278, Chapter titled, “Plain Instructions: The Little Catechism”; drawn chiefly from the works of St. Alphonsus Liguori. See: 

[10] Cardinal John Henry Newman, Essays Critical & Historical, Volume II, Tenth Edition (London: Longmans, Green & Co., and New York, 15 East 16th Street, 1890), p. 116.

 [11]Used by St. Augustine of Hippo, a ‘seraphic’ Doctor of the Catholic Church: