reasons that will soon become evident, I have titled this reply, "
will deal with
Yes, you read correctly,
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"
Under the sub-heading, THE APPLICATION OF 666 TO VICARIUS FILII DEI IS AN OFFICIAL ADVENTIST TEACHING, Dr. B says:
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,
"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."
Problems with the "Mitre Arguments"
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.
B. then proffers under point sub-heading: "Are the Measurements of the
Here is his splendid reasoning: "the text
does not say that "the number  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
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
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?
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
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).
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
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 "
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…
Malachi Martin then refers to “the
inordinate power and influence of that network.”
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
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
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.
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
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
“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,’ ”  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
completely correct. Anybody who is
acquainted with the state of affairs in the
is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter
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
Then we had the much earlier statement in 1846, from the most revered entity in Catholicism, ‘Mary’:
- “Our Lady” at La Salette,
Lose faith? She (
[the angel] cried mightily with a strong voice, saying
What then are we to make of all these most thunderous
revelations from the very bowels of
More stunningly, what are we to think of the statement
But perhaps, the most interesting statement about the
nature of the
“... 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]”.
That Cardinal Gibbons was right, is seen from the fact that
Peter wrote from a place called “
Now if as
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
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: “
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.
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.
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”? 
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
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
Feel free to copy this to all and everyone.
 Windswept House:
 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
 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
 The Jesuits perhaps? They do take a devilish oath.
 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: “
 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.
 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: http://www.biblelight.net/Sources/Sovereignty-pg171-172.gif)
 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: http://www.biblelight.net/Sources/Mission-Book-pgs-278-279.gif
 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.
Used by St. Augustine of Hippo, a ‘seraphic’ Doctor of the Catholic Church: www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm