Chapter10 the two-horned beast - part1 - the false prophet

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST
By D.S. Farris
1
CHAPTER TEN
THE TWO-HORNED BEAST: PART ONE
THE FALSE PROPHET
In chapter eight we proved that the Jesuits are the architectures of the
dispensational futurist ideology pervading in much of evangelical Christendom. In
dealing with an issue of this magnitude, we must ask a very important question: Did the
Jesuits develop futurism only in self-defense against Protestantism’s identification of the
Papacy to the Antichrist? The answer to this question is an emphatic, NO! Though self-
defense was one of the reasons for futurism, the issue goes much deeper. As we analyzed,
the Jesuits were personally involved in the Oxford Tractarian Movement (Puseyism),
which shaped Anglicanism, Darbyism, and the latter reconstruction of the Baptist Church
in America through Scofield. In essence, the work of the Jesuits, in promulgating the
Counter Reformation theologies (both Praeterism and Futurism), was to subvert the
Protestants, not only in Europe, but also in America for a much greater cause—A
Catholic New World Order.
One should ask: Is the dispensational ideology this significant? This religious
ideology is very significant if it can affect the political structure into working with Rome
for her goals of world domination. The equation is simple: The politics of America will
have its definitive essence by the most pervasive ideology. In other words, the voter all
the way up to the three-branch system of American politics possesses their own religious,
political, and social ideologies. If Catholicism can place her dogmas into effect in
American government, because evangelical interest groups—who are involved in
politics—agree with Rome, then the Papacy is accomplishing her aims.
The Oxford Movement was by nature…ecumenical. In other words, the
dispensational futurist movement in Protestantism in its beginnings was by nature,
ecumenical. Many dispensationalists, today, are divided between working with Rome
and maintaining distance from Rome. Dispensationalists who maintain distance from
Rome do not understand the causality of their religion from its inception (Tractariansim),
whereas dispensationalists who work with Rome are carrying out the function of their
ideology—inculcated by Rome and the Jesuits to subvert evangelicals into making
America an Evangelical/Catholic power structure.
This chapter and the following chapter will bring to light eight very important
issues that will reveal the danger of dispensational futurism as a subversive and
destructive ideology in the last days:
Chapter 10 will cover the following:
(1) The sea Beast of Revelation 13—leading up to the rise of the two-horned Beast;
(2) Who the two-horned Beast represents in Bible prophecy;
(3) How the two-horned Beast is connected to the sea Beast politically—elucidating on the
political horn out of the two;
(4) The religious aspect of the United States—elucidating on the religious horn out of the
two—and how the religious aspect of America plays a major role in politics and the great
deception of the False Prophet.

Two-Horned Beast & False Prophet
Copy Right 8/27/03
2
Chapter 11 will cover the following:
(5) The background of Paganism and subversive movements, which have laid the foundation
for the New World Order through the United States;
(6) Zionistic elements in the New World Order plan;
(7) The mega blue print for three world wars for the subjugation of the Middle East to the
control of the United States and the Vatican.
(8) The negative outcome of the preceding operations and the Mark of the Beast.
It is our purpose to elucidate on each of these topics in detail as we gradually build up a
panoramic view of the greatest deception the world has ever seen. Through this eight-fold
analysis, we will demonstrate how the dispensational ideology has worked as a catalyst
for the “Great Deception.” This and the following chapter bring to focus the most
shocking truths about modern dispensationalism…truths that must be understood to see
the great danger of this ideology. Modern dispensational futurism is not just an incorrect
theological system; it is one of the primary ideological sources blinding multitudes of
evangelicals to the great satanic conspiracy for world domination.
(1) THE SEA BEAST OF REVELATION 13
Before we examine whom the two-horned Beast represents, we are going to
demonstrate once again whom the sea Beast represents. This brief analysis of the sea
Beast will place a chronology line in perspective so that identifying the second Beast will
be clear.
Notice the structure of Revelation 13:1 – 10. Open your Bible and compare each text
with the following analysis. (In this section also keep in mind chapter’s 5 and 6)
(Rev. 13:1) This Beast, like the beasts in Daniel 7, came out of the sea. The sea
represents the “multitudes of people in the world” (see Isaiah 17:12, 13; Jeremiah 46: 7,
8; Revelation 17:15). In chapter 6 we discovered that this Beast is the Antichrist, and this
Beast is the Roman Catholic Church.
(Rev. 13:2) The Roman Catholic Church has the resemblance of the beasts that came
before her, for she has borrowed the Paganism of all these kingdoms. The Papacy is the
very system of the Dragon, which proceeded from Nimrod, and made its way through
Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The compound proposition: “The
Dragon gave him (the Beast) his power and his seat and great authority,” indicates that
the Papacy received everything it is from ancient Babylon, the source of Dragon worship.
This proposition also indicates that Pagan Rome, which became very much the

By D.S. Farris
3
continuation and power of the Chaldean system, bequeathed its seat to the Papacy. Thus,
this proposition has a two-fold meaning:
(1) The seat of Pagan idolatry from ancient Babylon was bequeathed to Papal Rome;
(2) Pagan Rome, itself, bequeathed all that she was to Papal Rome.
(Rev. 13:3) When this text says that “one of the heads of the Beast was wounded; and his
deadly wound was healed,” this indicates that the heads are the seven successive
kingdoms that Satan has used to accomplish his warfare against God’s people. The
wounding of the head represents the wounding of the seventh head kingdom, which is the
Roman Catholic Church. The Papacy received her wound at the end of the 1,260 years—
in 1798—when France eliminated papal power and limited papal power to secular
government.
Note: Verse 3 indicates that the Papal head of the Beast was to receive a wound and the
wound would be healed. John used this two-fold proposition as an “all out” statement of
what was to transpire with this power; meaning, verses’ 4 – 9 explain the career of the
Beast up to the time that he receives the deadly wound in verse 10, while verses’ 11 – 18
explain the healing of his wound. Thus, Revelation 13 on this point has the following
structure:
Verse 3. General statement: Beast will receive a wound; and his wound will be healed.
Career Of Beast Up To Wound Healing Of The Wound
Verses’ 4 – 10 Verses’ 11 – 18
(Rev. 13:4) The whole world will worship the Beast; and by doing so, they are
worshipping the Dragon (Satan and his system—developed in ancient Babylon).
(Rev. 13:5) The Papacy speaks blasphemous words and rules 42 months (42 x 30 = 1,260
prophetic days, which are years). This transpired between A.D. 538 –1798.
(Rev. 13:6) During the time frame of the 42 months, the Papacy blasphemed against
God, His name, His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven (the host of heaven). The
following quotations are additional illustrations—with all that has been said in this
course—concerning the Papacy’s blasphemy.
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT says:
Bishops are also called pontiffs. This name is derived from the pagans, who
thus designated their chief priests.
Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of
Rome . . .He sits in the chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the
Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the
Church recognizes the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction
derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself.

Copy Right 8/27/03
4
Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all Bishops, and of all
the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St.
Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal
Church (Translated into English by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan. THE
CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT: Fifteenth Printing. “Degrees of
the Priesthood,” 332, 333. Emphasis mine).
According to these documents, the high bishop of Rome is the Chief Pontiff after the
order of the pagans; we know this to be Nimrod’s succession (see Chap. 6).
Furthermore, they claim that the high bishop of Rome is the Head of Christendom. The
Papacy, unambiguously, tells us in their documents that the Chief Pontiff after the order
of Babylon (the order of 666) is the Head of the Church. They even go as far as to claim
that they have power to forgive sins:
On this point of doctrine, then, it is the duty of the pastor to teach that, not only is
forgiveness of sins to be found in the Catholic Church, . . .but also in her resides
the power of forgiving sins; and furthermore that we are bound to believe that
this power, if exercised duly, and according to the laws prescribed by our Lord, is
such as truly to pardon and remit sins (THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL
OF TRENT: “The Church Has the Power of Forgiving Sins,”113, 114).
Compare Revelation 13:6 with the description of the little horn in Daniel 8 (see chap. 4
on the little horn). They are undoubtedly the same power. The little horn of Daniel 8
represents both Pagan and Papal Rome. This interpretation makes complete sense,
because the Chaldean system of Pontiffs, along with their tenets of worship, became
concentrated in these two powers. We learn in the History Of Romanism:
In their [the Papacy] very priesthood, they have contrived to keep up as near a
resemblance as they could to that of pagan Rome: and the sovereign pontiff,
instead of deriving his succession from Peter, who, if ever he was at Rome, did
not reside there at least in any worldly pomp or splendor, may with more reason
and much better plea style himself the successor of the Pontifex Maximus, or
chief priest of old Rome; whose authority and dignity was the greatest in the
republic; and who was looked upon as the arbiter or judge of all things, civil as
well as sacred, human as well as divine: whose power established almost with the
foundation of the city (John Dowling, The History Of Romanism: From The
Earliest Corruptions Of Christianity To The Present Time, Book 2, Chap. 6, 126.
Emphasis mine).
Rome under the Caesars became the seat of Satan, the seat of that cursed religion from
Nimrod; and this seat was transferred to the Roman Catholic Church. The description of
the little horn in Daniel 8 reveals that his abomination would be against the host of
heaven and the prince of the host—Jesus. The little horn is described as a power that was
to take away the daily (Heb. 7:24) of Christ’s priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.
Revelation 13:6, like Daniel 8—when speaking of the blasphemies against God, his
name, his tabernacle, and those in heaven—is undoubtedly referring to the “True
tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man (Heb. 8:2).” Because the Church is the
spiritual manifestation of the literal sanctuary in heaven, and because there is an

By D.S. Farris
5
intimate connection between these two sanctuaries, it is without doubt that the first phase
of the Abomination of Desolation took place for the 42 months of Papal supremacy. The
description of the Beast in Revelation 13:6 is in perfect correlation with the career of the
little horn in Daniel 8 who attempted to take away the “daily” of the prince of the Host.
No wonder the Lollard scholar, Walter Brute, a follower of John Wycliff, saw the
position of the High Bishop of Rome as the “taking away of the daily”:
If the high Bishop of Rome calling himself the Servant of the Servants of God,
and the chief Vicar of Christ in this world, do make and maintain many laws
contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; then is he of those that have come in
Christs name, saying, I am Christ, and have seduced many a one, by the
Testimony of our Saviour in Matt. Chap. 24. And the Idol of desolation sitting in
the Temple of God and taking away from him the continual sacrifice for a time,
times, and half a time, which Idol must be revealed to the Christian people by the
Testimony of Daniel. Whereof Christ speaketh in the Gospel; When ye shall see
the abomination of desolation that was told of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in
the holy place; let him that readeth understand (John Foxe. Acts and Monuments
of matters Most Special and Memorable, Happening in the Church. 9th ed, vol.
1, 545)
Another follower of Wycliff, Sir John Oldcastle (1360 – 1417), was martyred for
identifying the Pope with the abomination of desolation; he said:
But as touching the Pope and his Spirituality, I owe them neither suit nor service,
forsomuch as I know him by the Scriptures to be the great Antichrist, the Son of
Perdition, the open Adversary of God, and the Abomination standing in the holy
place (John Foxe. Acts and Monuments of matters Most Special and Memorable,
Happening in the Church. 9th ed, vol. 1, 636).
(Rev. 13:7) We have already seen the fact that Papacy has killed multitudes of people.
The papacy did indeed make war on the saints (see chapter 5).
(Rev. 13:8) John saw that the whole world would follow the Beast, accept for those who
were saved from its errors. Why would the whole world follow the Beast? The Papacy
subjugated whole nations to its obedience, as we demonstrated in chapter 5, and this
control is again on the horizon.
(Rev. 13:9, 10) These texts are the confirmation of a temporary end to Papal Power. The
Papacy ruled as supreme over much of the earth from A. D. 538 – 1798. In the year
1798, France eliminated the Papal supremacy. H. W. Crocker III tells us:
The occupying French declared Rome a Republic in 1798, and the aged Pope
Pius VI was taken prisoner. He died in 1799 in Revolutionary France, where the
constitutional clerics treated him as an unimportant old man, a heretic from the
Enlightenment’s new religion of Reason, Nature, and the State (TRIUMPH: The
Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 351).

Copy Right 8/27/03
6
In 1798 Napoleon’s General, Bertheir, dethroned Pope Pius VI on Feb. 15, 1798 and put
papal power to rest. We learn from George Trevor:
The territorial possession of the clergy and monks were declared national
property, and their former owners cast into prison. The papacy was extinct: not a
vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman catholic powers not a
finger was stirred in its defence. The Eternal City had no longer prince or
pontiff; its bishop was a dying captive in foreign lands; and the decree was
already announced that no successor would be allowed in his place (Rome: From
the fall of the Western Empire, 440).
General Berthier put forth a Bill to restore Italian power back to the people in the format
of government—based on the French Republic. Alexander Berthier’s Bill states:
The Roman People are now again entered into the rights of sovereignty,
declaring their independence, possessing the government of ancient Rome,
constituting a Roman Republic.
The General-in-chief of the French army in Italy declares, in the name of
the French Republic, that he acknowledges the Roman Republic independent,
and that the same is under the special protection of the French army.
The General-in-chief of the army acknowledges, in the name of the
French Republic, the provisional government which has been proposed by the
sovereign people.
In consequence, every other temporal authority emanating from the old
government of the Pope, is suppressed, and it shall no more exercise any function
. . . .
The Roman Republic, acknowledged by the French Republic,
comprehends all the country that remained under the temporal authority of the
Pope, after the treaty of Campo-Formio. “Alexander Berthier” (Cited in
Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 756).
(The following web site from Michael Sheifler is a good reading on the present topic:
The Deadly Wound of Revelation 13:3 )
After 1798, Napoleon set out to codify law into a more unified structure for the French
Government. The Code of Napoleon is dated 1801 – 1804. Will Durant explains that in
1804 “the Code Civil des Francais, popularly the Code Napoleon—became the law of
France” (The Age Of Napoleon, 182). Napoleon’s code was the greatest codification of law
since the days of Justinian’s “Corpus iuris civilis.” Why is this code important to our
study? Durant shows:
Finally, after a session that lasted till 2 A.M., the representatives of the Roman
Church and the French state signed (July 16, 1801) the Concordat that was to
govern their relations for a century (The Age Of Napoleon, 183).
Revelation 13:3 says: “the Beast received a wound to death,” and verse 14 says, “the
Beast had a wound by the sword and lived.” The stroke of this sword was intended to
kill, but it did not kill. The stroke of the French sword in 1798 was intended to kill, but
Napoleon came to the conclusion that the Church had a very effective system for social

By D.S. Farris
7
order—at least—in comparison with the disorder caused in the French Revolution.
Napoleon realized the importance of the Church as a pervasive element in society for
morals; thus, he realized that it would be foolhardy to eliminate the Church totally. The
Code of Napoleon, in effect, was not only for France; this code was designed to regulate
the Papacy. As Durant says, this Code was to regulate the Papacy for a century. Durant
further explains:
The historic document pledged the French government to recognize—and
finance—Catholicism as the religion of the Consuls and the majority of the
French people, but it did not make Catholicism the state religion, and it affirmed
full freedom of worship for all French, including Protestants and Jews.
Napoleon unilaterally added to the Concordat 121 “Articles Organiques,” to
protect the preeminence of the state over the Church in France. No papal bull,
brief, or legate, no decree of a general council or national synod, was to enter
France without explicit permission from the government (The Age Of Napoleon,
184).
This history is very significant. France surrounds the 1,260 years of Papal power. Clovis,
the first King of France, made it possible for the Papacy to eliminate the Arian threat,
which hindered Papal supremacy. France also was the power that inflicted the wound on
the Papacy. Also notice the fact that the 1,260 years exist between the Code of Justinian
and the Code of Napoleon. Justinian’s Code initiated and promulgated the Papal
supremacy for the 1,260 years, while Napoleon’s Code set the stage for a century of
Papal submission to the Government. In essence, Napoleon gave the Papacy a stroke of
death by the sword, and Napoleon’s code created the political situation that kept the
Papacy in a wounded state for over a century. It is not difficult to see that history
possesses clear and important landmarks around the 1,260 years to identify this period of
time to the career of the Papacy. God has given us more than enough evidence to identify
the Papacy as the Beast.
Note: We have just analyzed what Revelation 17:8 describes as, “the Beast that WAS and
IS NOT.” We will analyze whom the Beast that YET IS after we find out who the
second Beast in Revelation 13:11 – 18 represents.
(2) THE TWO-HORNED BEAST
(Rev. 13:11) Who is the beast with two horns like a lamb? There are two things that we
should immediately notice about this beast: (1) He came up when the Sea Beast was
going down; (2) This beast came out of DRY LAND, whereas the first beast came out of
the sea.
When both “sea” and “earth” are used together in symbolic prophecy, the term
earth—like sea—must have a symbolical meaning. Because the “sea” represents
“peoples, multitudes, and nations,” the “earth” must be the opposite. Dry land is the
opposite of water; thus, the “two horned Beast” came up out of an era of the world that
was scarcely populated. This Beast rose up out of an area that was, by nature, an
undiscovered country. The “two-horned Beast” rose up out of the New World. And
notice that the “two-horned Beast” was rising up in the New World when the sea Beast

Copy Right 8/27/03
8
was going down into his wounded state. Said another way, when the Papacy was going
down into its wounded state after 1798, the two-horned Beast was in the process of rising
up in a place where there had never been a country before. John Wesley, the founder of
the Methodist Church, knew that the Papacy is the great Antichrist. In his note on
Revelation 13:11, in the year 1754, he said: “He (the two-horned Beast) is not yet come:
tho’ he cannot be far off. For he is to appear at the End of the forty-two Months of the
first Beast” (Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (1791 ed.), Vol. 3, 299: Cited in
Bible Readings For The Home).
The second Beast in Revelation 13 is undoubtedly the United States of America.
In 1798 America was “coming up (Gr. Anabaino: “ascend” “to rise” “be born up”
“spring up”)” in the New World. In 1798 America was in the process of “springing up.”
According to COWLES VOLUME LIBRARY: “In 1776 the declaration of independence
was adopted”; “In 1783 England and Europe acknowledged American independence”;
“In 1789 [came] organization of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the
new government. The first Congress meets in New York” (COWLES VOLUME
LIBRARY, “Parallel Outlines Of American History,” 1060, 1061). America as a nation
was in its beginning stages when the Papacy submerged into its wounded state.
The second Beast has two “lamb-like” horns with no crowns. The Lamb is
indicative of Christ (John 1:29). Horns represent kingdoms (Dan. 8:22), but horns can
also represent institutional power (Rev. 5:6). Well did Luther S. Kauffman define
America:
A few centuries ago, men and women, oppressed and persecuted by both civil
and religious authorities looked across the sea to this virgin land and came here
to escape from these persecutions, and to, if possible, establish a government in
which there might be civil and religious liberty (Romanism as a World Power,
10).
The two horns on the second Beast of Revelation 13 are indicative of “civil” and
“religious” power. The term “lamb,” as applied to these two institutions, indicate “civil
liberty” and “religious liberty.” These are the two great pillars of the United States.
Kauffman brings attention to the “dry land” aspect of Revelation 13:11 where he says
that America was a “virgin land.” Moreover, his statement brings attention to the two
lamblike horns. Kauffman goes on to say:
So, it will be seen, that even before the formation of our present Government, the
question of the Union of Church and State occupied a very prominent position in
the minds of the Colonists.
At the very beginning of this Government, the founders thereof saw in the then
existing governments of the world the disastrous effects of the union of church
and state, because in all the governments of that time, whether they were Roman
Catholic or Protestant, if there was such a union, it worked injury to the general
welfare of the people (Romanism as a World Power, 15, 16).
In other words—according to Revelation 13—the two-horned Beast would not be a
monarchical country with a king over it, for there are no crowns on the horns. The two-
horned Beast was to be a country ran by the people, and this country was to have its

By D.S. Farris
9
inception with the appearance of Christian principles. That the United States, in its
inception, had the appearance of Christianity, is seen in the 1787 Constitutional
Convention when George Washington was addressed by Benjamin Franklin in the
following way:
Mr. President—The small progress we have made . . . is, methinks, a melancholy
proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel
our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running all about in search
of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and
examined the different forms of those republics, which, having been originally
formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist; and we have
viewed modern states all around Europe, but find none of their constitutions
suitable to our circumstances. In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it
were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it, when
presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once
thought of humbly applying to the Father Of Lights to illuminate our
understanding? . . . . I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the
more convincing proof I see of this truth, that God governs the affairs of men.
And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that
an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred
writings, that except the ‘Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I
firmly believe this; and I also believe, that without his concurring aid, we shall
succeed in this political building no better than the builders of the tower of Babel.
. . . I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers, imploring the
assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this
assembly before we proceed to business; and that one or more of the clergy
of the city be requested to officiate in that service (Cited in Romanism as a
World Power, 20, 21).
(3) THE COALITION BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND BEAST
(The Political Horn Out Of The Two)
(Rev. 13:11, 12) These texts indicate that there would be a coalition between the United
States and the Roman Catholic Church. This coalition would take place sometime during
the healing process of the Papacy. Now, before we prove the existence of a coalition
between the Vatican and the United States, we must establish with more clarity the date
of the Papal wound in conjunction with the date when the Papacy began its healing
process. It is important that the reader clearly see these dates and the fact that there was a
period of time when the Papacy was subdued from being a world power. In other words,
we must visualize a three-fold depiction in Papal history: (1) The wound; (2) the period
of submersion; and (3) the beginning of restoration. When this threefold historical reality
is understood, then it becomes clear whom the two Beasts in Revelation 13 represent…in
light of a visible fulfillment of prophetic chronology—homogeneous to world events.
The Three-Fold Depiction Of Papal Decline, Submersion, And Restoration
When did the Papacy receive a wound? We have discovered in the first section of
this chapter that, in 1798, Napoleon put an end to the Papal supremacy. The year 1798 is
unequivocally confirmed in history. Crocker says, “Napoleon had risen to power on the

Copy Right 8/27/03
10
back of an atheistical revolution, conquered Europe, and tried to extinguish the power of
the papacy, even imprisoning the pope” (TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the
Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 355). We have discovered that the Code of
Napoleon placed the Papacy under the power of secular government. Durant explains that
Napoleon’s code set in motion secular power as the guiding norm for governing the
Papacy for a century. This period of Papal decline is known in history as the “Roman
Question.” A good definition for this term is defined as follows: A period of time in
which Papal power, when it has the potential to rise, immediately falls, a process that
repeated until the 20th
century.
The Code of Napoleon (1801 – 1804) allowed the Papacy to resume its religious
functions—though under the power of the state. But as the 19th
century progressed, the
Papacy was in a constant flux of loosing and gaining privileges. Crocker shows that
under Italy’s king, Victor Emanuel II, “The pope’s holdings were reduced to a citadel—
the immediate environs of Rome—guarded by French troops” (TRIUMPH: The Power
and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 360). This transpired
because of a big conflict of interest between Catholics—who wanted to defend the Papal
States—and the secular government. Crocker continues:
In 1870, the French withdrew to fight the Franco-Prussian war. The pope’s own
volunteers were no match for the Italian army—a phrase not often heard in
history—which seized Rome for the king and for Italy, whose capital it now
became. The pope, in his own words, became a prisoner of the Vatican
(TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-
Year History, 360).
Malachi Martin explains that preceding the 19th
century, whenever “external” or
“secular” powers threatened Papal power; the Papacy always had countries to defend her.
However, in 1870 the Papacy was in a different situation. Martin says, “There was no
more help from any secular quarter, no temporal power to turn to. All the major powers
and many lesser powers of Pius’s [Pius IX] day have decided the papacy must go” (The
Decline And fall Of The Roman Church, 248). The Papacy did not begin to exercise
political power—as she did prior to 1798—until the 20th
century. Crocker shows:
In Italy, the Church achieved its biggest breakthrough. In 1929, after three years
of negotiations, the Church regained a temporal status with the creation of
Vatican City, all 108 acres of it, along with the Lateran Palace, Castel Gondolfo,
and a few other holdings. In addition, Italy paid the Church a substantial sum in
cash and government bonds to compensate it for the loss of the Papal States.
Equally important was that the Church was restored to Italian life. Crucifixes
returned to public schools, as did the teaching of the Catholic doctrine. Catholic
priests could conduct religious marriages. The war of Italian liberals against the
Church was over, thanks to the Church’s newfound ally—Benito Mussolini (The
Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-Year History, 387).
Martin agrees with this interpretation of history, as follows:
After Pius IX died, three more popes remained “prisoner” in the Vatican. In

By D.S. Farris
11
1928, the up-and-coming dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, decided for the sake
of national unity that the “Vatican question” should be solved amicably. After
protracted negotiations, in 1929, Mussolini’s government and the Vatican of
Pope Pius XI signed the Lateran Pacts, thus ending the sixty-year-old official
enmity between the Vatican and Italy (The Decline And fall Of The Roman
Church, 257).
Note: The wound to Papal power initially took place in 1798, and more completely in
1870. The submersion of the Papacy in its wounded state is dated 1798 – 1929. The
beginning of the restoration of the Papacy or the healing of the wound is dated between
1929 to the present day. Notice the following statement:
The deadly wound to the papal head of this beast was inflicted when the French,
in 1798, entered Rome and took the pope prisoner, eclipsing, for a time, the
power of the Papacy and depriving it of its temporalities. Again in 1870 temporal
dominion was taken from the Papacy, and the pope looked upon himself as the
prisoner of the Vatican. By 1929 the situation had changed to the extent that
Cardinal Gasparri met Premier Mussolini in the historic palace of Saint John
Lateran to settle a long quarrel—returning temporal power to the papacy, to
“heal a wound of 59 years” (The Catholic Advocate [Australia], April 18, 1929,
p. 16; Cited in Bible Readings For The Home Vol. 1)
The San Francisco Chronicle on February 12, 1929 said, “In affixing the autographs to
the memorable document, healing the wound which has festered since 1870, extreme
cordiality was displayed on both sides” (The Catholic Advocate [Australia], April 18, 1929, p.
16; Cited in Bible Readings For The Home Vol. 1). In 1929 Papal power began the process of
restoration, and the world has seen the Papacy grow magnanimously since that day.
Now that we have established the three fold historical depiction of decline, submersion,
and restoration in the Papacy, we can now proceed to analyze the alliance between the
Vatican and the United States—in fulfillment of Revelation 13.
The Vatican And American Alliance
According to Revelation 13:11, 12, the two-horned Beast would have an alliance
with the sea Beast some time during its restoration process. In other words, the United
States would develop a coalition with the Papacy sometime after 1929. Notice that in

Copy Right 8/27/03
12
Revelation 13:12, the “two-horned Beast” is the power that finishes what was started in
1929. This prophecy shows that America would be the power to completely restore the
Papacy. This means that there must be a coalition between the Papacy and the United
States.
Thomas Patrick Melady reveals:
The opportunities for the United States and the Holy See to cooperate in the
promotion of human rights, religious freedom, and political pluralism are
benefiting from the full diplomatic relations now existing between the two
powers. This cordial and cooperative framework did not always exist. In fact, it
took 208 years for the United States to enter into full diplomatic relations with
the oldest international personality in the community of nations (The
Ambassador’s Story: The United States And The Vatican In World Affairs, 41)
Melady points out that through American history, there have been different attempts—
through different presidents—to establish a solid diplomatic relationship between Rome
and the United States. Attempts by presidents, such as Roosevelt and Truman, to
establish FULL diplomatic relations (for there has indeed been relations before Reagan)
did not come into being until Ronald Reagan became president. Melady says:
On January 10, 1984, President Ronald Reagan announced the establishment of
formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See…The 1984 announcement by
President Reagan, however, gave full recognition to the unique international
sovereign role of the Pope and his government, not only in Vatican City State but
throughout the world where the Pope and his government exercised their spiritual
and political authority. There was no equivocation in this announcement. The
United States was extending full recognition for the first time to the government
of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Once the announcement was made on January 10, 1984, that the United States
would establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and that the President
would nominate William A. Wilson to serve as the first Ambassador became
public. The announcement implied the acceptance of the international law
principle that the Holy See is a bona fide international personality. Thus the

By D.S. Farris
13
announcement by President Reagan acknowledged the papacy as a religious
organ with international rights and duties. This was not a qualified recognition of
Vatican City State. In previous times it would have caused a firestorm of protest.
But it immediately became evident, both in tone and substance, that there
had been a major change in domestic U.S.political opinion (The
Ambassador’s Story: The United States And The Vatican In World Affairs, 50,
53. Emphasis mine)
Melady is very correct where he says that there is a policy change in the United States.
That Ronald Reagan created the platform for the Papacy to increase its influence in the
United States is emphasized by Michael de Semlyen:
Over fifty percent of the recruits to the United States military academies are now
Roman Catholic according to 1988 figures released by the Catholic Chaplain
Recruitment Vicar for the military services. The number of Catholics in the
United States House of Representatives increased from 82 in 1950 to 142 in
1986. Catholics occupy key positions in the Executive Branch, the Judiciary, the
State Department, the delegation at the United Nations, in the CIA, FBI and the
Department of Immigration (All Roads Lead To Rome: The Ecumenical
Movement, 116).
Back in 1912, Jeremiah Crowley told us:
I know and assert without fear of successful contradiction that the Vatican
system--the Roman Catholic Hierarchy--has a grip upon all departments of
our Government, from the President to Department Clerks, including
Legislative, Judiciary and Executive Departments, both Federal and State--
and the accommodating politicians, Catholic and non Catholic, particularly
the latter, are to blame for it all (Romanism: A Menace To The Nation, 166).
If Crowley thought there was a problem then, what would he say now?
The growing influence of Catholic policy in the United States government continued after
President Reagan. After explaining Reagan’s “close relation to the Vatican and its
influence on American policy,” John M. Swomley says, “His successor George H. W.
Bush, was also responsive to the hierarchy.” Swomley, quoting the National Catholic
Reporter, says, “He has been more sensitive and more accessible to the needs of the
Catholic Church than any president I know of in American history” (Catholic Power VS.
American Freedom, 204).
The following are some deductible propositions based on what has been analyzed up to
this point:
(1) At the end of the 42 months, the sea Beast receives a wound (Rev. 13:1 – 10).
(2) While the sea Beast is going down into his wounded state, a Beast with two horns like a
lamb is coming up out of dry land (Rev. 13:10, 11).
(3) The two-horned Beast will speak like a Dragon and cause the world to follow the sea
Beast when the sea Beast’s wound is healed (Rev. 13:11 – 18).

Copy Right 8/27/03
14
(4) The preceding compound proposition implicitly states that there will be a coalition
between the sea Beast and the two-horned Beast.
Question: When did the sea Beast receive a wound?
Answer: In 1798, the Papacy received a wound by the French.
Question: In 1798, was there another world power rising up out of dry land—opposed to the sea.
Answer: The United States was rising up in the NEW WORLD in 1798.
Question: When did the wound of the sea Beast begin healing?
Answer: The Papacy began to come into power again in 1929.
Question: When did the coalition between the sea Beast and the two-horned Beast officially take
shape?
Answer: The “official” coalition between America and the Papacy took shape under Reagan’s
presidency and continues to grow.
Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia Laodicea
100 313 538 1400's 1798 1844 1929
1, 260 Years
THAT WAS IS NOT YET ISThe Beast
Coalition Between America
and Papacy.
1984
Pagan Rome Papal Rome U. S. A Papal Rome
God has given us a clear depiction that the United States and the Roman Catholic Church
are the main players in earth’s closing events. The issues that have been analyzed up to
this point are based on clear historical proofs—correlated with the Historicist method of
interpreting prophecy. There is nothing ambiguous in these correlations. The reason
many evangelicals cannot see these correlations is because they teach doctrines
(Preterism and Futurism) which were created to blind the minds of people from
perceiving these realities.
The Danger Of The Papacy To America
The Vatican is very serious in its aims to maintain a coalition with the United
States, because the Papacy plans on ruling, not only America, but the world through the
United States. Any Protestant with a competent knowledge of History should question
Rome’s relationship with the United States. John W. Robbins in his book Ecclesiastical
Megalomania explicitly defines the purpose of the Papacy:
The Roman Church-State is a hybrid—a monster of ecclesiastical and political
power. Its political thought is totalitarianism, and whenever it has the opportunity
to apply its principles, the result has been bloody repression. If, during the last
30 years, it has softened its assertions of full, supreme, and irresponsible power,
and has murdered fewer people than before, such changes in behavior are not due

By D.S. Farris
15
to a change in its ideas, but to a change in its circumstances… The Roman
Church-State in the twentieth century, however, is an institution recovering
from a mortal wound. If and when it regains its full power and authority, it will
impose a regime more sinister than any the planet has yet seen (Ecclesiastical
Megalomania:The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic
Church, 195. Emphasis mine).
In the past America realized the threat that Papal power poses to our liberty in both
politics and religion. The “Rev. Charles Chiniquy, in his autobiography, on page 715 in
describing an interview with President Abraham Lincoln, in Washington, D. C. in June,
1864, quotes the President as follows:
You are almost the only one with whom I may speak freely on the subject. But
sooner or latter, the nation will know the real origin of those rivers of blood and
tears, which are spreading desolation and death everywhere. And, then, those
who have caused these desolations and disasters will be called to give an account
of them. I do not pretend to be a prophet. But though not a prophet I see a very
dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome. It is
filled with tears of blood. It will rise and increase, till its flanks are torn by a
flash of lightning, followed by a fearful peal of thunder. Then a cyclone such as
the world has never seen, will pass over this country, spreading ruin and
desolation from north to south. After it is over, there will be long days of peace
and prosperity: for Popery, with its Jesuits and merciless Inquisition, will
have been swept away from our country. Neither I nor you, but our children, will
see those things (Cited in Luther S. Kauffman, Romanism as a World Power, 6).
President Lincoln maintained this attitude towards the Papacy, not because he was a
bigot, but because he—unlike many today—understood the true policies of the Catholic
Church—that they are incompatible with the American Constitution. Robbins acutely
emphasizes:
What the Roman Church-State accomplished on a small scale during the Middle
Ages is what it desires to achieve on a global scale in the coming millennium. If
it fails to reach its goal within the next hundred years, it will not quit. It will
continue to work relentlessly for world power, even if it should take another
millennia or two (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 187).
The following statement from Martin demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church
seeks to gain control of the whole world:
As both papacy and Jesuits know, the effects of their policies go far beyond the
confines of the Roman Catholic; even far beyond the nearly one billion Catholic
men and women around the world. Almost everything that happens in this war
(conflict of interest between the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church)
bears directly and immediately on the major dissensions that wrack every nation
and people in the world. It is involved in the very heart of the rivalry between
the United States and the Soviet Union, for example. It bears right now on the
fate in misery or happiness of 350 million people in Latin America. It affects the
deeply changing public moral and national consensus of the American people;
the imminent preponderance in human affairs of the People’s Republic of China;

Copy Right 8/27/03
16
the fragile persistence of a free Western Europe; the security of Israel; the still
rickety promise of a viable Black Africa just aborning. All of these things,
separate and unconnected as they may seem, are not only interwoven with
one another, but are and will be profoundly influenced by the tides and
outcome of the global collision between the papacy and the Society of Jesus
(The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic
Church, 14. Emphasis mine).
Martin clearly says that all the world issues revolve around the relationship between the
Papacy and the Jesuit Order. This implicitly says that Romanism wields much of the
power over the nations. Let us raise the question: Why is the coalition between America
and the Vatican dangerous? Martin emphasizes:
Nevertheless, the brute fact is that many Jesuits wish to see a radical change in
the democratic capitalism of the West, in favor of a socialism that seems
inevitably to come up smelling just like totalitarian Communism. And the fact
is as well that there is no lack of individual and influential Jesuits who regularly
speak up for the new crusade.
Because the “new kind of society” cannot be “democratic capitalism as we know
it,” the United States as the leader and most successful exponent of democratic
capitalism comes center stage. Indeed, as early in the war as the 1960s, when
Jesuits in the United States established a “Jesuit national leadership project,”
their Working Paper was explicit about their intention to change the fundamental
structure of America from that of a capitalist democracy (The Jesuits: The
Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, 16, 17.
Emphasis mine).
The mission of the Papacy is to make the United States into a Catholic communist
system? In fact, the Papacy desires to accomplish this throughout the whole world.
The new mission of the Society—for it is nothing less than that—suddenly places
them in actual and, in some instances, willing alliance with Marxists in their class
struggle. The aim of both is to establish a sociopolitical system affecting the
economies of nations by a thorough—going redistribution of earth’s resources
and goods; and, in the process, to alter the present governmental systems in
vogue among nations (The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the
Roman Catholic Church, 15).
Is the policy of the Papacy Marxism? Robbins reveals:
One of the Roman Church-State’s most influential statements on economic
matters is the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, On the Condition of the Working
Classes. In this encyclical the Roman Church-State allied herself with the
proletariat, which in Marxism is the great and final enemy of the capitalist order.
The encyclical’s Marxism is so blatant that one Roman Catholic writer declared
that “much of the encyclical [Rerum Novarum] appeared only to repeat in more
orthodox language what Marx said ten years before (Ecclesiastical
Megalomania, 43).

By D.S. Farris
17
There are those who make the mistake in disbelieving that the Papacy’s policy is
communism; such are uninformed! Robbins reveals that the economic policies of the
Papacy throughout the centuries have been congruous with the dogma of Thomas
Aquinas—the Papacy’s greatest and official philosopher—who taught that LAW was
manifested in the following:
(1) Eternal Law: God’s purpose for the universe;
(2) Natural Law: the part humans play in the eternal law—the natural function of man in
society;
(3) Positive Law: the application of customs and regulations by rulers in society; and
(4) Divine Law: The Ten Commandments.
Aquinas emphasized that natural law demands “the possession of all things in common”
(Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 30, 31) in order for the other laws to work congruously with
each other. Robbins further elucidates on this issue in the following:
In Thomas’ philosophy, need is the moral criterion for the rightful and lawful
possession of property: Whoever needs property ought to possess it. Need
makes another’s goods one’s own. Need is the ultimate and only moral title to
property. Neither possession, nor creation, nor production, nor gift, nor
inheritance, nor divine commandment (with the exception of Roman Church-
State property) grants title to property that is immune to the prior claim of need.
The Thomistic notion of original communism—the denial that private property is
part of the natural law, but the common property is both natural and divine—is
the foundation to all the Roman Catholic arguments for various forms of
collectivism, from medieval feudalism and guild socialism to twentieth century
fascism and liberation theology. The popes refer to this original communism as
the “universal destination of all goods (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 32, 38).
This ideology, described by Robbins, is precisely what the Jesuit Malachi Martin says is
to reshape America and the whole world. Now, we have no doubt why Nicolini, back in
1854, said:
When once the Jesuits had raised up a generation so devoted and obedient, they
then brought into operation their system of government, and made a successful
attempt to realize that republic preconceived of old by Plato, and which, with
perhaps more interested views, is held out to us by the Socialists of our own day.
In fact, their form of a republic was nothing else than Communism which the
famous Cabet is now trying to establish in nearly the same regions; the only
difference being, that the Jesuits substituted themselves for the state or
community (History Of The Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and
Designs, 303. Emphasis mine).
The Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church envision a Catholic Communism as being
the policy of America under their control. They are already succeeding, and very few
Americans realize that their Country has been subverted. Well does Des Griffin point out
that Socialism has become America’s policy:

Copy Right 8/27/03
18
As a 1973 Senate Report (Number 93-549, 93rd
Congress, Ist Session,
Emergency Powers Statues) states in its Foreword: “Since March 9, 1933, the
United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” This
continuing “State of … emergency” confers “enough authority [in the federal
government] to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional
processes . . . .[and to] control the lives of all American citizens.” These
emergency powers—under which the United States has been virtually
transformed from a Republic into a Socialist democracy—have never been
challenged by any recent “republican” administration (Fourth Reich Of The Rich,
117, 118).
We should raise the question: Who or what caused the United States to adopt these
policies? Robbins makes the following observation:
In the United States, the influence of Roman Catholic economic thought has
resulted in the creation of a redistribute state, in which the government intervenes
in the economy and society in order to protect the “common good” and establish
“social justice.” Of course, it was not Roman Catholic economic thought
exclusively that ushered in interventionist government in the twentieth century,
but by the last third of the nineteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church had
become the largest religious organization in the United States. By lending its
moral authority to interventionist policies, the roman Church-State played an
indispensable role in the centralization, politicization, and socialization of
American society and economy in the twentieth century (Ecclesiastical
Megalomania, 81).
The reason that the United States has developed relations with the Papacy is because the
Jesuits have been in the United States for the last 200 years gradually changing
America’s policies to match the objectives of Rome. R. W. Thompson explains precisely
the situation that America faces:
If it be true that “history repeats itself,” and that nations, moving in fixed cycles,
follow each other in their courses, the remembrance of the fact that many of
them, once prosperous, have passed out of existence, admonishes us to inquire
with exceeding caution into the relations which these same Jesuits have created
between themselves and our institutions. They have not changed, but are still the
infatuated and vindictive followers of Loyola, and it is well for us to know
whether there are not evidences that, if permitted, they may repeat here what
their society, at the command of its founder, attempted in Germany, under the
pretense that God had appointed them to conspire against any free and
independent nation they could not otherwise subjugate. The people of the
United States spend their time in the pursuit of a thousand objects, and in
the investigation of a thousand questions, not the thousandth part as
important to them as this (The Footprints Of The Jesuits, 118, 119. Emphasis
mine).
Too many Americans live in a dream world; they don’t perceive the big reality of this
controversy. We agree with W. C. Brownlee: “The Jesuits [have always] aimed at an
universal dominion over the souls and bodies of men, to bind them as vassals to the

By D.S. Farris
19
pope’s chariot wheels” (Secret Instructions Of The Jesuits, 7. Emphasis mine).
Americans need to wake up to the fact that “the Jesuits were [and are] the soldiers of the
pope: they knew no law but the will of their general; no mode of worship but the pope’s
dictate; no church but themselves” (Secret Instructions Of The Jesuits, 7. Emphasis
mine). The Papacy and her Jesuits have no intention on allowing America to remain a
religious and politically free country; they have and are in the process of completely
changing America into a power identical to themselves. It is clear that America is the
two-horned Beast who restores the wound of the first Beast. And why is this the case?
This is the case, because the Catholic Church has had the Jesuits over in America long
before Ronald Reagan set up the coalition. The Catholic Church had her soldiers in
America, long ago, to get into high places in the government so that they could wield the
change of America. Luigi Desanctis tells us the extent Jesuit subversion has infiltrated
nations around the world:
The Jesuits exist in all Protestant countries under the name of missionaries,
with the habit of priest, and also with the habit of layman; they exist there under
other names. Also, to those countries the Father-General sends men of the
greatest ability, who make themselves all things to all, to gain all to the sect. . . .
Take England, for example, there they do not legally exist; nevertheless, they
have not given up that country, and I assure you that they are more numerous in
England than in Italy . . .They proselytize in all classes of society, so there are
Jesuits in the parliament, amongst the Anglican clergy, amongst the Bishops, and
perhaps also still in higher circles. There are Jesuits among the Protestants . .
.Yet they say that all things are pure to the pure; that to feign yourself Protestant,
to lead Protestants back to the Church, is a holy work (Popery, Puseyism, and
Jesuitism, 135).
President Abraham Lincoln was well aware of what Desanctis describes as being the
subversive work of the Jesuits. Lincoln emphasizes:
The Protestants of both North and South would surely unite to exterminate the
priests and the Jesuits, if they could learn how the priests, the nuns, and the
monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their
religion . . .are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon III, and
other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our
people from our constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a
reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and
wherever there are any people who want to be free (Charles Chiniquy, Fifty
Years in the Church of Rome, 499).
What is the danger of the Papacy to the United States? The danger is thus: The Papacy is
a totalitarian religious system that desires to enforce a religious communism on the world
and the United States. The Papacy undoubtedly has been working through the subversive
enterprise of the Jesuit Order long before the political alliance set up by President
Reagan. The alliance that Reagan brought into being has, as we are going to see, only
accelerated the speed at which the United States will make an image to the Papacy.
Prophetically speaking, we are living in the time frame of the Beast that “yet is” (Rev.
17:8), and the United States—most definitely—has a political coalition with the Papacy

Copy Right 8/27/03
20
that is, by nature, assisting her resurrection to power. This is precisely what the prophecy
of Revelation 13:12 foretold: “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before
him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose
deadly wound was healed.”
Up to this point, we have analyzed Revelation 13:1 – 12. In the next section, we
are going to establish how mainstream Protestantism in America has and is fulfilling the
attributes of the False Prophet described in Revelation 13:11 – 15.
(4) RELIGION OF AMERICA HELPS RESTORE THE PAPACY
(The Religious Horn Out Of The Two)
According to the prophecy of Revelation 13:11 – 15,
supernatural elements would cause the people of the
United States to follow the Papacy. This leads us to the
religious horn of the two-horned Beast. Verses’ 13, 14
tell us:
And he does great wonders so that he makes fire come
down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and
deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those
miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast;
saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should
make an image to the beast, which had the wound by the
sword and did live.
Notice: These texts illustrate that the sea Beast had the
wound by the sword and did live. The Beast “that
was” ruled from 538 – 1798. The Beast “that is not” was the Papacy from 1798 – 1929.
The Beast “that yet is” is the Papacy from 1929 all the way to the present day.
According to verses’ 13 and 14—sometime after 1929—the two-horned Beast would
restore the sea Beast. The political horn of America has indeed been doing this very thing
as we have seen. Now, coupled with the American political alliance with the Papacy, we
have and are seeing a growing religious alliance with the Papacy. The fire that produces
the miracles (Gr. Semeion: “an unusual occurrence transcending the common
course of nature.”) in the two-horned Beast represents the religious element of the
United States; this is Protestantism. In other words, Protestant America—like the
government—will have an alliance with the Papacy.
The Christian Right
(The following web sites contain information that compliments this section: Christian
Coalition and the Hyjack of the Christian Church and The Rise of the Religious Right in
the Republican Party)
In the United States, many fundamental Protestants have witnessed the decay of
American society in favor of liberal ideologies, such as: guy rights, abortion, the decline

By D.S. Farris
21
of the right to pray or use the Bible in school, and an overall trend towards more
immorality and violence in society. Postmodernism, the belief that truth is relative, in the
eyes of Christian fundamentalists is one of the main ideological proponents of the decline
of the United States into a society that is ever becoming more like Sodom and Gomorrah;
which inevitably, will bring God’s wrath on the United States. The Christian Right first
emerged under the leadership of Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist, who sought to combat
the modernity or the growing trend towards a secularizing society, which obviously is
leaving behind Christianity. One of the main purposes of the Christian right was to
develop a conservative political majority of Christians who could apply partisan politics
for the sake of preserving Christianity as a foundation of the United States. The Christian
Right gained support from denominations, such as: Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals,
Charismatics, or fundamentalist evangelicals in general (See Justin Watson. The
Christian Coalition: Dreams of Restoration, Demands for Recognition, 9). Justin Watson
shows that the Christian Right has gone through three periods of development.
Concerning the first period, Watson says:
The first, or expansionist, period lasted from the inception of Christian Right
organizations in 1978 until 1984. During this period of rapid growth and high
public visibility, figures such as Falwell of Moral Majority and “God’s Angry
Man,” James Robinson of Religious Roundtable, influenced the political agenda
by bringing moral and family issues to the forefront of public discussion.
Despite its influence, the Christian Right failed to get much of its legislative
agenda enacted and did not seem to secure much more than rhetorical support
from the Reagan administration (The Christian Coalition, 26).
Watson says that between 1985 – 1986 (the second period), the Christian right seemed to
fade away from large public visibility, as a result of their political amateurishness, to
reorganize their agenda with a more workable plan. In 1987 (the beginning of the third
period), after examining their mistakes, the Christian right emerged again with more
force and determination to bring their political agenda to success (See The Christian
Coalition, 26). What allowed the Christian Right to achieve more progress? We are told
that in 1988, Pat Robertson campaigned for the Republican nomination, but was defeated.
Robertson is well known as the founder of the Christian Broadcast Network (CBN) with
his popular 700 Club program—used to propagate his political and religious ideologies
abroad. In 1989, Robertson founded the Christian Coalition. Watson tells us: “The
discussion of the purpose, structure, and activities of the CC has demonstrated that the
CC has been an attempt to institutionalize the Christian Right” (The Christian Coalition,
80).
Watson reveals: “When the Christian Right emerged as a political force, it was
quickly accused of wanting to use government to impose intellectual, moral, and religious
uniformity on the American people” (The Christian Coalition, 21). Why would people
come to this conclusion about the Christian Right? People have come to this conclusion
largely because of things said by the leaders of this movement. For example, in 1979,
Robertson told U.S. News & World Report that, counting both Catholics and Protestants,
“we have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, ‘We’ve had
enough,’ we are going to take over” (Cited in The Christian Coalition, 34). In 1991
Robertson said, “The Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political organization

Copy Right 8/27/03
22
in America” (Cited in The Christian Coalition, 77). Ralph Reed who was the executive
director of the CC—under Robertson—has been charged with saying, “We think the Lord
is going to give us this nation back one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time,
and one state at a time” and “I honestly believe that in my lifetime we will see a country
once again governed by Christians” (Cited in The Christian Coalition, 77).
Watson also points out in different places that these men have denied a desire to
create a theocracy, by which the United States would be governed by religious dogma.
Watson shows several statements from Robertson and Reed in which their focus is on
Restorationism—without religious totalitarianism; meaning, these men want to return
America back to, what they believe to be, a time when America functioned on Judeo
Christian principles, as Watson describes: “the recapture of an idealized past in an
imaginary future.” The following is good explanation:
What Robertson and Reed want is a return to a supposed golden era in which it
would not occur to anyone to question the propriety of public school prayer, the
Ten Commandments on the wall of a government building, unabashed mixtures
of evangelical piety and patriotism, or the assertion that this is a Christian nation
(The Christian Coalition, 23, 121).
Is restoration possible without enforcing religion on the populace? Watson tells us that
there is another Protestant counterpart to the CC called Reconstructionism. We learn:
“The people of God, according to the reconstructionists, should exercise dominion using
biblical law as the ‘blueprint’ for a totally ‘reconstructed’ and holy social order.
Reconstructionists propose a society that would be not merely reformed, ‘but rather razed
and rebuilt’” (The Christian Coalition, 110). We must ask: Are the leaders of the CC
double talkers; meaning, individuals who say on one scale that they want “to take
over”—as the Reconstructionists do—and on another scale say that they don’t want to
create “a religious theocracy.” Watson brings to view that there have been “many
reports” and “many allegations” of Robertson having connections with the
Reconstructionists, such as: “Robertson’s Regent University [hiring] professors with
Reconstructionist ties and views;” Robertson’s book The Secret Kingdom having a
chapter, “The Law of Dominion” being in accordance with Reconstructionism; and
Robertson saying and doing things in politics that resemble Reconstructionism” (The
Christian Coalition, 113). Watson demonstrates on different accounts that Pat Robertson
denies having the same agenda as the Reconstructionists. However, when one reads
Watson’s book, one can easily gain the impression that the leaders of the CC are either
“double talkers” or confused in their purpose. E. G. White told us long ago about what is
happening with the CC. She emphasized that these leaders are “making their way in
darkness. The leaders are concealing the true issue, and many who unite in the movement
do not themselves see whither the current is tending” (Last Day Events, 125).
We need not attempt to grapple with internal, mental debate as to what the true
intentions of the CC are, for Revelation 13:11 – 18 shows that the two-horned Beast will
make an image to the sea Beast. The only way this can be fulfilled is if both politics and
religion in the United States are united to enforce the institutions of the Papacy. E. G.
White predicted:
When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of
doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their

By D.S. Farris
23
decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have
formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties
upon dissenters will inevitably result (The Great Controversy, 392).
Religious Ecumenism
There are those who believe that the United States could never become a
Christian totalitarian system. As we are seeing and will continue to see, this is exactly
what is taking shape in the United States through the Christian Right. A Christian
totalitarian system in America is only possible, because of the growing religious
ecumenism between evangelicals and Catholics. In a general definition, what is
ecumenism? Semlyen tells us: “The aim of the ecumenical movement is to achieve one
world communion; to bring all churches, denominations, and ultimately all religions
together” (All Roads Lead To Rome: The Ecumenical Movement, 20). Let us ask: Where
did the modern ecumenical movement originate? The modern ecumenical movement has
its inception with Pope John XXIII—in the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965).
Therefore, any attempt to understand ecumenism should be accomplished through an
understanding of the Vatican’s policy of ecumenism. What is Vatican policy on this
matter? Swomley reveals:
The Vatican view of ecumenism is that all Christians should be unified in one
Christian body. During the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI announced
that such unity cannot be attained except by identity of faith, by participation in
the same sacraments, and in the organic harmony of a single ecclesiastical
control. He also asserted that only the Catholic Church can offer these elements.
This is also the position of the Second Vatican’s decree on ecumenism (Catholic
Power Vs. American Freedom, 160).
In other words, the whole religious ecumenical movement—from its inception—was the
goal of the Papacy to ultimately win all Christian denominations back to the fold of the
“Mother Church.” Over a hundred years ago—when American Protestants had great
animosity for the Papacy—we were told that evangelicals and Catholics would unite in
ecumenism:
The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their
hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of Spiritualism; they will reach over
the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of
this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on
the rights of conscience…Papists, Protestants, and worldlings will alike
accept the form of godliness without the power, and they will see in this
union a grand movement for the conversion of the world, and the ushering
in of the long-expected millennium (E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 515.
Emphasis mine)
When Mrs. White made this assertion over a hundred years ago, many Protestants
thought she was crazy, for it was inconceivable to them that such a union could take
place. Obviously, as we are going to see, her understanding of last day events was very
precise. The Protestant churches, we were told, would clasp hands with the Papacy in the
focus of the approaching Millennium. How true is this? G. Edward Reid’s research on

Copy Right 8/27/03
24
the Ecumenical movement is revealing. He explains that in the 1990’s two ECT
documents were created, one of them being a 25-page document developed by 40 well-
known Evangelical and Catholic leaders. This document was called: Evangelicals and
Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. Reid explains that
on March 30, 1994, USA Today reported the document in the following:
In what is being called a historic declaration—though not an official stance of
either denomination—evangelicals including Pat Robertson joined with
conservative Roman Catholic leaders Tuesday in upholding the ties of faith that
bind the nations’s largest and most politically active groups . . . .The leaders, in a
statement are urging the nation’s 52 million Catholics and 13 million
evangelicals to no longer hold each other at theological arm’s length and stop
aggressive proselytization of each other’s flocks—in short, to turn their
theological swords into a recognition of a common faith (Cited by Reid in
Sunday’s Coming, 32, 33).
In the book ECT, Charles Colson says:
The document “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” was drafted by believing
Catholics and believing Protestants, people at the center of their communions,
who realize that they have more in common with one another than with the
borderline liberals of their own traditions.
Christians do not have the luxury of limiting their energies to theological debate.
True believers must reach across theological divides and embrace one another
as brothers and sisters in Christ. Our obligation is nothing less than to join
together in a defense of the truth of our shared faith. All Christians who confess
that Jesus is Lord must unite for the sake of our Lord and for the sake of our
culture (Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, 36,
38).
The underline portion of Colson’s statement looks similar to Mrs. White’s statement:
“The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the
gulf to grasp the hand of Spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the
Roman power.” Colson argues—like the other writers in this document—that the Papacy
and evangelical Protestants will not agree on every point of doctrine, but rather they will
unite on common doctrines of agreement. Well did Mrs. White emphasize:
The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as
decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But
there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing
sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure
such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed—
however important they might be from a Biblical standpoint—must necessarily
be waved (The Great Controversy, 391).
Mark A. Noll emphasizes the fact that evangelical Protestants and Catholics are uniting
regardless of theological differences:

By D.S. Farris
25
Once upon a time—in fact, within the memory of many people who are still very
much alive—Catholics and evangelical Protestants regarded each other with the
gravest possible suspicion… While Roman Catholics and Protestant evangelicals
are still divided by many important differences, the possibilities that now exist
for communication, theological and social cooperation, and mutual
encouragement are so much greater than even a generation ago as to constitute a
minor revolution (Evangelicals and Catholics Together, 83).
Pat Robertson says:
The moral crisis facing society today and the obvious social breakdown mandates
a closer cooperation between people of faith. The time has come where we must
lay aside minor points of doctrinal differences and focus on the Lord Jesus Christ
. . . .This statement lays the groundwork for moving forward in a spirit of
cooperation.
I am lending my support because I believe it’s imperative that we work to bring
the body of Christ together (Christain American, May/June, 1994: Cited in
Sunday’s Coming, 34).
Political Ecumenism
The religious ecumenism between Evangelicals and Catholics is ultimately
leading to a political ecumenism. We are told that in 1995, a “Road To Victory
Conference” was held in Washington D.C. in which the Christian Coalition further
developed their relations with the Catholic Church, and they planned to work together for
the election in 1996. Ralph Reed who was the executive director of the Christian
Coalition spoke at this conference.
“I believe that the emerging alliance, the emerging partnership of Catholics and
Evangelical Protestants, is going to be the most powerful force in the electorate
in the 1990’s and beyond –and anybody that ignores that alliance is going to
make a big mistake.
“We are at an historic time in our nation and in our relationship as Protestants
and Catholics.
“The change we are seeing in America is not just a political change. It is more
deeply a spiritual shift that is shifting the plates of the American political
landscape. And Catholics have been at the very center of that. According to exit
polls taken after the 1994 election, for the first time in American history Roman
Catholics, a majority of them –56 percent of church-attending Catholics and 51
percent of all Catholics –voted Republican in an off-year election.
“And I believe that, just as the Evangelicals have become the base vote of the
Republican party, Catholics are now today the swing vote in American politics.
Any candidate who wins the Catholic vote will be able to govern America. No
president has been elected since John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960
without winning the Catholic vote. . . . .The Catholic vote holds the key to the
future of America . . . . .I believe if Catholics and Evangelicals can unite there is
no person who runs for office in any city or any state in America that can’t be
elected and there is no bill that can’t be passed in either house of Congress

Copy Right 8/27/03
26
or any state legislative chamber anywhere in America. It is the emerging
force in the electorate today.
“The truth my friends is this, Catholicism never has been, is not today, and
never will be a threat to American democracy. It was and remains the most
colorful and the most vibrant thread running through the tapestry of
American democracy (Cited in Sunday’s Coming, 70 – 72).
Watson also agrees that Evangelicals and Catholics are uniting in politics:
From the beginning, the CC has attempted to enlarge its ‘market-share’ by
including ‘pro-family Catholics’ in its statement of purpose. In October 1995,
the CC formed the Catholic Alliance, a division of the CC geared specifically to
Catholic Voters. ‘If Catholics and evangelicals can unite,’ Reed told the first
meeting of the Catholic Alliance, ‘there is no person who cannot run for any
office in any city or any state in America that cannot be elected’” (The
Christian Coalition, 67).
In these statements, we see the transparent admission that if Catholics and Evangelicals
unite, they can place their policies in both the state and federal government. It is not
difficult to see why so many critics have charged the Christian Right as seeking religious
authoritarianism in the political arena. But these statements are only confirming what
Revelation 13 predicted would take place. Reed is sadly mistaken where he says, “The
truth my friends is this, Catholicism never has been, is not today, and never will be a
threat to American democracy.” The Catholic priest, Leo H. Lehmann explains the
problem of ignorance that seems to prevail in America:
THE EXTENT of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church on politics and
war is not generally known to the American public. Americans have tried to look
upon and treat the Roman Catholic Church in their traditionally tolerant attitude
toward all religions, forgetful that its policies have always affected every phase
of the life of the nations of the world, and unwilling to believe that a political
Church would try to gain ascendancy over their government. This has been aided
by the purposeful silence of the public press in America, which fearfully eschews
all adverse comment on Catholic Church affairs (Vatican Policy In The Second
World War: Introduction, 5)
After bringing to light the ignorance of the American populace, Lehmann says:
Americans have been deceived concerning the aims and activities of the Roman
Catholic Church for three main reasons: (1) their indifference to Church-State
relations as a factor in government; (2) their forgetfulness of the disastrous
effects of Roman political ecclesiasticism in past centuries; (3) the purposeful
confusion created here in America by Roman Catholic propaganda concerning
the real aims of Roman Catholic policy in democratic countries (Vatican Policy
In The Second World War: Introduction, 5, 6).
The problem that exists, not only among the general population of America, but also
among the evangelicals is well described by Lehmann--in the preceding quote--as:
indifference, forgetfulness, and confusion. Evangelical leaders who are willing to unite

By D.S. Farris
27
with Rome do not understand the purpose of the Papacy in uniting with evangelicals.
Lehmann emphasizes
[The] unchanging goal of the Catholic Church is the restoration of its status as
the only legally recognized Church in Christendom. To attain it, liberal
democratic constitutions must be continuously opposed and a type of civil
government eventually established in all countries that would extend protection
only to the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican Policy In The Second World War, 6.
Emphasis Mine).
Jeremiah J. Crowley, who was a Catholic priest for 21 years, has warned us of the deceit
of the Catholic Church:
Few have any idea of the crafty efforts which Catholic ecclesiatics make to
hoodwink non-Catholics. Priests, bishops and cardinals cultivate a spirit of
seeming liberality on purpose to win the esteem of the very people whom
they hate, so that these people will be made unwilling to countenance any
opposition to the movements of Romanism. (Romanism: A Menace To The
Nation, 163)
Like Lahmann and Crowley, the Catholic scholar George La Piana has a far clearer
perspective on Rome’s ecumenism than Reed and other evangelicals who want to unite
with Rome:
If you search after Christian unity, Rome has said, there is only one way of
attaining it: Come to Rome, and accept Catholic uniformity within the Catholic
authoritarian and totalitarian system. Likewise, the tolatarian regime of Moscow
answered the appeal for peace and security of the surrounding nations by
annexing them to Soviet fold, and telling all other nations that peace and security
could be established only on Soviet terms. This striking parallelism of claims
and policies of a totalitarian state and a totalitarian church is not a casual
coincidence. It is the logical consequence of their absolute premises which,
though they differ one from another in content and aims, stand in both systems
upon the same firm belief that they, and they alone, are right while the others are
wrong, and that they, and they alone, have a universal mission entrusted to them
either by God or by destiny which must be fulfilled (Catholic Power Vs.
American Freedom, 20, 21).
Where Reed says, “The Catholic vote holds the key to the future of America,” does he
really know the magnitude of what he is saying? In the context of growing Catholic
power in America today (vs. where they were a century ago), the intentions of Rome are
defined by Piana: “The time had come for the Church to come out of the trenches and to
take the offensive in the great undertaking of conquering the United States to the Catholic
faith, for the salvation of the souls, for the greater happiness of the country, and for the
glory of God” (Catholic Power Vs. American Freedom, 113).
Piana further elaborates:
American Catholics under the orders of their hierarchy have the religious and

Copy Right 8/27/03
28
moral duty to undermine, by all means, the American system of religious
freedom and equality of all religions before the law, and to bring about a union of
the Catholic Church and the state in this country (Catholic Power Vs. American
Freedom, 71).
No wonder J. Wayne Laurens made such a big emphasis on what the Jesuits say to the
Americans who believe they have control of America through their votes:
“Now,” said the Jesuit, “listen to me a few moments and I will tell what I know.
Your president is elected by the conclave of cardinals at Rome, the same who
elected the pope. Your people nominate the candidates. Our confidential agents
select from the number, the one whom they believe to be the most favorable to
the interests of the church. His name with those of the other candidates is
reported to the cardinals and the pope. When their decision is announced to the
confidential friends of the pope and the cardinals, in the United States, they send
forth their orders through the priests, and the whole Roman Catholic vote is
thrown for the candidate who is favored by the church. He, of course, is always
elected. Your parties are so equally divided on politics, that this Roman Catholic
vote, which is cast on purely religious considerations, is always sufficient to turn
the scale” (The Crisis: Or, The Enemies Of America Unmasked, 13).
If Laurens thought this was a problem in his day, what would he say in light of the
Evangelical and Catholic political alliance today? Americans need to heed the words of
Jeremiah Crowley:
How long shall the Roman Catholic hierarchy play the people for fools? Shall the
government be of the people, for the people, and by the people, or by the pope?
Lets not let the pope of Rome name our presidents for us. Lovers of your
country, beware of Jesuitical intrigues, the political power of Romanism, and the
honeyed words of politicians reaching after the presidency (Romanism: A
Menace to the Nation, 196).
Reed is either blindly believing that the alliance between evangelicals and the Papacy
will preserve American freedom, or he is apart of this conspiracy. Why is this the case?
Swomley reveals:
The overall mission of the Catholic Campaign for America is “to activate
Catholic citizens, increase the Catholic electorate’s influence in formulating
public policy, and focus the public’s attention on the richness and beauty of
Catholic teaching.” A 1992 newsletter of the Catholic Campaign declared that
“seperation of church and state is a false premise that must finally be cast aside
(Catholic Power Vs. American Freedom, 166).
We completely agree with Swomley where he says, “Nevertheless, with few exceptions,
the Vatican has succeeded in forcing the administrative and intellectual leadership of the
American Church to become thoroughgoing agents of papal totalitarianism” (Catholic
Power Vs. American Freedom, 64). Very clearly did E. G. White define the work of the
Christian Right:

By D.S. Farris
29
They are working in blindness. They do not see that if a Protestant government
sacrifices the principles that have made them a free, independent nation, and
through legislation brings into the Constitution principles that will propagate
papal falsehood and papal delusion, they are plunging into the horrors of the
Dark Ages (Last Day Events, 126).
Was Mrs. White correct in believing that Papal falsehoods will be propagated in politics
through the work that the Christian Right is accomplishing? Swomley agrees: “In the
United Staes, once the bishops and their allies became dominant, legislative and judicial
interpretations would reflect the morals, customs, educational values, and other demands
of the Vatican” (Catholic Power Vs. American Freedom, 261).
Reed’s speech demonstrates that Catholics and Protestants are working together in
politics. Their focus is to place their religion in Politics—meaning religious views they
have in common. When this is fully accomplished, this will prophetically constitute the
two-horned Beast making an image to the first Beast.
Protestants and Catholics are now working together to gain control of the Political
structure of America, but the Papacy, as we have analyzed, has already been doing this
very thing since the days of the Founding Fathers. The Christian Right is blind, for Rome
has not changed; America has gradually changed by the subversive activities of the
Jesuits. Many evangelicals have only grown accustomed to the already Catholic policies
that are governing the nation. Those who support the CC and those are willing to work
with Popery, are like the frog that sits in a stew pot while the pot heats up to a boiling
temperature over a long period of time. They have been sitting in the insidious stew pot
of Jesuit and Catholic subversions for decades. Evangelicals are being cooked, but yet
they think the water is normal. We need not be deceived like the Christian Coalition, for
we were told over a hundred years ago that Protestants would do the very thing they are
doing:
As the Protestant churches have been seeking the favor of the world, false
charity has blinded their eyes. They do not see but that it is right to believe
good of all evil; and as the inevitable result, they will finally believe evil of all
good. Instead of standing in defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, they
are now, as it were, apologizing to Rome for their uncharitable opinion of
her, begging pardon for their bigotry (E. G. White, The Great Controversy,
500. Emphasis mine).
What does Mrs. White mean by “False Charity?” Semlyen demonstrates a perfect
example of the definition of False Charity:
Many critics of Ecumenism predict that Church unity under the supremacy of
Rome will rapidly lead to a fresh outbreak of bigotry and persecution. They
believe that the behind-the-scenes political power of Catholicism is greatly
underestimated already, and that when Church and State are reunited, such power
will become irresistible (All Roads Lead To Rome, 64).
Neuhaus agrees that there are evangelicals who view ECT “as part of a vast conspiracy
by which evangelicals are being seduced into betraying the Reformation and returning to
Rome” (Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, 178, 179).
Neuhaus continues, “Some of the promoters of this conspiracy theory evidence a mindset

Copy Right 8/27/03
30
that is aptly described as paranoid” (Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a
Common Mission, 179). Lehmann describes the problem of people like Neuhaus in the
following:
Just as the Trojans unsuspectingly accepted the mysterious horse thrust within
thier gates by the wily Greeks, so too has America stood in awe of the "sacred
cow" of Catholicism and has never dared even to question its presence.
Americans are justly fearful of being accused of religious bigotry and
intolerance, since they have long prided themselves as gauranteeing religious
liberty and freedom of expression to all comers. They have been thus without
means to justify an open investigation of an organization suspected of concealing
dynamite that, touched off by other dangerous forces, may explode in their midst
and destroy the very Constitution that has enabled them to remain secure and
prosperous themselves and tolerant to the Catholic Church itself (Behind The
Dictators, 37).
The problem with Neuhaus is he does not understand the true policy of Papal ecumenism.
Concerning Vatican II, Swomley shows:
However, official Vatican control of the Church and official Roman Catholic
doctrine did not change on any crucial points, so the purpose and program of the
Vatican remained that of authoritarian control of Catholics and of governments.
Religious liberty, democracy, and ecumenism were not authorized by the official
documents of Vatican II. Both non-Catholics and Roman Catholics who have
not read the documents have accepted erroneous assumptions that the
Church had changed its position on these issues…The traditional position of
the Church, as formulated by Pope Leo XIII (1878 – 1903) and circulated in the
United States in 1960 just before Vatican II, was that the state must not only have
care for religion but must “recognize the true religion professed by the Catholic
Church.” It was a logical position if its premises were accepted. If the state is
under moral compulsion to profess and promote religion, it is obliged to process
and promote only the religion that is true; for no individual, no group of
individuals, no society, no state is justified in supporting error or in according to
error the same recognition as to truth (Catholic Power Vs. American Freedom,
157. Emphasis mine).
The signatories of the ECT document are either not ascertaining Rome’s policies or they
are part of the religious conspiracy. Why? The Papacy is a totalitarian system. If she
gains control of the United States, she will persecute those who differ from her beliefs.
Semlyen agrees with this outlook:
In Protestant countries such as Britain and the USA, the Roman Church appears
moderate and tolerant, but in Catholic countries such as Peru, Chile, Argentina,
Columbia and Mexico, and countries in Africa like Uganda and Zambia, also
short on experience with democracy but where the Catholic Church is strong,
Rome’s other side has shown itself in intolerance and cruelties towards
Protestants (All Roads Lead To Rome, 64).
Let us ask: Why does the Papacy persecute Protestants in countries where it has the most
power? La Piana emphasizes:

By D.S. Farris
31
Likewise, in totalitarian Catholicism the fundamental rule is ‘Nothing against the
Church, no salvation outside the Church.’ No tolerance of heretical errors or of
disciplinary schisms are theoretically admissible in the Catholic system. By the
principle that there is no salvation outside the Church (because the Church, in the
person of the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, holds the keys of Heaven, so
that whatever he binds or loosens on earth is bound or loosened in Heaven), the
totalitarian power of the Church extends over all aspects of human life. It
extends to all actions of people from the beginning of their existence in the womb
of their mothers to the grave. Indeed, it extends beyond the grave, in Purgatory,
where the Church can hasten the process of expiation; and even in Heaven, where
the decrees of the infallible pope are duly registered as divine decrees and where
the Church can obtain special favors through the cult and the intercession of the
saints (Catholic Power Vs. American Freedom, 21, 22).
The Papacy seems mild to the signatories of the ECT document, because the Papacy is
extremely crafty in her diplomatic skills. She appears to be apologetic, but underneath
the threshold of appearances she has other plans. Very factually E. G. White observed:
Popery is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the
latter times. [2 THESS. 2:3, 4.] It is a part of her policy to assume the
character which will best accomplish her purpose; but beneath the variable
appearance of the chameleon, she conceals the invariable venom of the
serpent. "We are not bound to keep faith and promises to heretics," She declares.
Shall this power, whose record for a thousand years is written in the blood of the
saints, be now acknowledged as a part of the church of Christ? (The Great
Controversy, 500. Emphasis mine)
Semlyen shows that E. G. White was not the only one who discerned this deceit in
Popery. Semlyen cites the Catholic Research Information Bureau (CRIB) as giving the
world a strong and sober warning:
Don’t be deceived. The Roman Church is like a chameleon. Tolerant, friendly,
highly moral and authoritative in Protestant England and America; but where
there is a Roman Catholic majority, she is very different and no friend of
freedom, always blending in with the landscape, but never quite what she seems
to be (All Roads Lead To Rome, 127).
Robbins takes this whole matter to its logical conclusion:
The world will know that Rome is genuinely repentant only when its mind
changes (for that is what the word repentance means), and the world will know
that its mind has changed only when its theology, monarchy, episcopacy,
economic thought, and political pretensions have been explicitly repudiated.
Anything less than such a repudiation is merely another subterfuge in a long
tradition of frauds, forgeries, and deceptions intended to mislead the world
(Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 198, 199).

Copy Right 8/27/03
32
But as Wylie argues: “It will one day be told the world, and the nations will clap their
hands at the news, that the Papacy has fallen; but it will never be told that the Papacy has
repented. She will be destroyed, not amended” (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius,
And Prospects, Book 1, 153. Emphasis mine).
One Of The Main Elements Of Religious Deception
What is one of the main reasons that many evangelicals develop working relations
with Rome with a false sense of impunity? Concerning the book The Condemnations of
the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide? Noll says:
The European Catholics and Protestants who published this book concluded that
the condemnations of the Reformation were based on misconceptions, were
aimed at extreme positions on the other side, and no longer apply to today’s
situations (Evangelicals and Catholics Together, 108. Emphasis mine).
Noll says that the conditions, which divided Catholicism and Protestantism in the past, no
longer apply to today’s situation. What conditions is he talking about? The conditions,
which no longer prevail, are the evangelical emphasis of the Papacy being the prophesied
Antichrist of Bible Prophecy. The dogma that the Papacy uses today is the same dogma
that came out of the Council of Trent. That Council totally and unequivocally condemned
Protestantism. Has the Catholic Church changed? Piana explains:
The modern Catholic Church, its dogmatic system and its institutional discipline,
are still based on the canons and regulations of the Council of Trent. Since then,
there has been in the Catholic Church no further theological development of any
major importance, but only the unfolding of all the implications of the doctrine of
the monarchical absolutism of the constitution of the Church… (Catholic Power
Vs. American Freedom, 30).
The Catholic Church has not changed; Protestants have changed. Semlyen declares:
In a real sense, in the year of the anniversaries of J. H. Newman and Ignatius
Loyola’s Jesuit Order, the Counter-Reformation, the comeback of Roman
Catholicism, was complete. The Protestant Reformation has now effectively been
abandoned by the visible Church in Britain and is widely represented as a tragic
mistake (All Roads Lead To Rome, 15).
This statement says it all! The Counter Reformation with its futurist system of Prophetic
interpretation has been very successful in subverting Protestantism in Europe and
America. Semlyen very factually says:
Many Protestant commentators point out that the interpretation of Biblical
prophecy is now almost all “Futurist,” the system which they believe was
evolved by the brilliant Jesuit theologians Ribera and Bellarmine after the
Council of Trent. They see futurist scholars as evolving eschatological theories
and systems faster than theological colleges can absorb them. The view that the
antichrist is still to come, and that therefore the passage of Scripture relating to

Chapter10 the two-horned beast - part1 - the false prophet

Chapter10 the two-horned beast - part1 - the false prophet

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Chapter10 the two-horned beast - part1 - the false prophet

Similar to Chapter10 the two-horned beast - part1 - the false prophet (19)

More from Antonio Bernard

More from Antonio Bernard (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Chapter10 the two-horned beast - part1 - the false prophet