Vatican Echoes Satan’s Comments in Isaiah 14


  • “We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty…”Leo XIII
  • “We, define, declare, assert that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff…” Boniface VIII
  • “….Union of minds, therefore, requires complete submission to the will of the church, and to the pontiff, as to God himself..” Leo XIII

Sound familiar? Look at what the Word uncovers about Satan’s desires…

  • “How thou art fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning, how thou are cut down to the ground (earth (Rev 12:12, Luke 10:18))…For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High” Isaiah 14:12-14

Satan’s and Rome’s end result?

  • Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. And they that shall see the shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake the kingdoms” Isaiah 14:15-16

This page was copied and pasted by permission from

9 responses to “Vatican Echoes Satan’s Comments in Isaiah 14”

  1. Interesting. Just be sure not to take brief quotations out of context. You quote, “We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty…” I am not sure precisely what your source is, but do you know what is meant here, in context of Catholic theology?


    • The quotes should have their sources attached. As far as context goes, I cannot imagine a context which would make this quote acceptable in the eyes of God. There are two forms of blasphemy in the Bible. The first one says that Claiming to be God (or hold His place or title) is blasphemy …

      John 10:33 “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

      The second definition is claiming the power to forgive sin.

      Mark 2:7 “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?”

      Both blasphemies are committed by the Roman Catholic leadership. For the Pope to claim he is the vicar of the Son of God is calling himself God. The quote we are speaking about is just a much more forward way of saying the exact same thing. And the Vatican openly displays that they claim the power to forgive sins by the use of confessionals.

      Having been a Catholic for 27 years before the Lord rescued me, I am familiar with the operations of the church, just like you are. Held in the context of the Bible, it is clear that the Vatican is guilty of a multitude of sins, including both forms of blasphemy. Claiming to be God has been said in the church in a multitude of ways, including openly as the quote shows.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Pope is not calling himself God by calling himself His vicar. You can be someone’s vicar without being said person. Since the Pope’s status actually depends on the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God made man who left him as vicar until His second coming, I find it hard to say that he is an antichrist, if that is what you mean.
        As for forgiving sins, that is another topic which I can explain if you want, but that is not the prerogative of the Pope alone.


      • Unfortunately, he is, in fact, calling himself God by calling himself the vicar of Christ. The word vicar is better understood as meaning “in place of”, or “in replacement of/for”. To say that anyone stands in the place of Jesus Christ is to go against the Scriptural fact that only Jesus Himself is the head of His church. The hierarchical structure of Rome is fashioned after pagan Rome and declares that the visible church needs a visible head. But this runs contrary to proper Biblical understanding as the Bible openly declares (in no uncertain terms) that Jesus Christ alone stands as the head of the Christian church. For the pope to declare he is the vicar of Christ is to say he stands in the place of our Saviour God. He needs no man, nor does He ever mention for a man, to stand in His place.

        The most common verses used to justify the claim that man can forgive sins is in John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18. If these are the verse you would use to explain that man can forgive sin, the please understand that those verses are being taken wildly out of context. If you would like, I can either send you (or just post it as a blog entry) the explanation of these verses using them in the original context in which they were written.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think I see what you mean. However, I would argue that isn’t what the word “vicar” means precisely. The Latin word vicarius can mean “deputy” or “one acting for another”—in other words, representative. I think most Protestants/evangelicals (however you describe yourself) would admit that pastors and other such people can “stand in the place of” God under certain circumstances to a certain extent, symbolically at any rate, such as when preaching a sermon or offering communion (even speaking of communion in a Protestant context, of course). For instance, our Lord says, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16) Paul actually says, “So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20) This obviously doesn’t lay a very firm blueprint for the papacy, but I think it does show that men can represent God on Earth as “ambassadors” prior to the Second Coming.

        To give another example, in the Old Testament there was the High Priest. He could be considered a “vicar” or “representative”. Even bad ones, such as Caiaphas, were still appointed by God to spiritually rule His people (see John 11:50-11:51) yet I think you would agree that he was not God, nor even now, if in modern-day Judaism, if the Jews were to try to somehow restore it, would you claim these high priests were making themselves God. Yet nevertheless, he sat on Moses’ seat. (Matthew 23:2)

        You probably see where I’m going with this… Basically, I think the same reasoning could go with the High Priest as the Pope, if you go that way.

        Those are some. Also, you might be surprised about Matthew 9:6-8 and James 5:15. I think I know how these arguments usually go. It would be a bit off from the topic of the papacy, but I would be willing to talk about it if you wish.


      • Again, thank you for your reply. The difference between the High Priest of the OT and the Pope’s of the past 1600 years is that the Lord openly declared that the High Priests would stand as a symbolic representation of the Father. The Pope’s of today assume that role based on the misinterpretation of …

        Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

        With the verse taken in the context of the passage, the chapter, and the Bible as a whole, it is evident that Jesus was not placing Peter as the “first Pope”. Rather He was acknowledging the faith which Peter had. The gates of hell most certainly have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Vatican. In the prophesied 1260-year period of time (538ad to 1798ad) when this first beast of Revelation came against the people of God, upwards of 500,000,000 of God’s real children were brutally tortured and murdered for their pure and undefiled faith toward God in that they refused the idolatry of the Eucharist and Sunday keeping.

        Nothing has changed, even since 1798. Popes like John Paul 2 have even rewarded world leaders for their extermination of Christians. Where, in any of the time since the Vatican came to power, have they showed forth the meek, humble, poor, and selfless character of Christ?

        And yes, if the Jews did try to anoint another high priest, I would say they are making the high priest out to be God. I say this because the following is said about Jesus Christ …

        Hebrews 5:10 “Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.”

        Hebrews 6:20 “Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”

        Hebrews 7:26-28 “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

        Hebrews 8:1 “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;”

        Hebrews 9:11 “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;”

        Hebrews 10:19-21 “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God;”

        Jesus Christ is the ONLY one who can be called a high priest from the time of His resurrection to the ends of eternity. There cannot be a Pope or high priest as our Saviour fulfills that role perfectly.


      • Thank you for your points. What I was saying is even if nowadays modern-day Judaism were to try to reinstate the High Priesthood, he would not be an antichrist, though God obviously does not intend the High Priesthood to still exist.

        As for Matthew 16, that is more complicated than that, but I will say he does name Peter “the rock” and says He will build the Church on it. He says nothing about His faith.

        I have heard of that. Where is the 1260-year period mentioned in the Bible? Also, what historical events happened in 538 and 1798 to justify that? Second, I’m not sure what you’re referencing. As for Sunday-worship, that was long before 538. The Didache, The Letter of Barnabas, and Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians testify to a Sunday worship, within the first and second centuries. As for the Eucharist… I don’t think there’s much evidence of anyone even denying that doctrine until the twelfth or thirteenth century or so. As for 500,000,000 people being killed… where did you hear that? I assume you’re talking about various ecclesiastical trials, but from what I hear, those were rather lenient in comparison to secular trials. As for Pope John Paul II, I’m not sure what you’re referencing.

        But even if I grant this, I think this is more of an appeal to hypocrisy. The same could be said of Caiaphas who was clearly High Priest. We could even take complaint with Jesus, saying “this is the guy who appointed Judas Iscariot.” There were, however, many good popes. Pope Leo I famously wrote The Tome of Leo, which established the doctrine that as to how Christ’s two natures exist in homoousion. He also famously met Attila the Hun in 452, and successfully convinced the barbarian raider to turn back from his invasion of Italy, probably saving many lives. Pope Gregory I is another great one. He did not wish to be Pope, preferring the monastic life, but nevertheless, he took it on. He was famous for the emphasis he put on missionary work, sending out many to bring people to Jesus and into the Church. He also emphasized the aspect of service to the poor for deacons. The number of deacons was increasing in number and they were seen as less essential as extensions of the Bishop than they were in the early Church. Deacons were often tasked with giving alms to the poor, and at least one was assigned to each church and ordained for this purpose. When a famine struck Rome in the 590s, Pope Gregory ordered the Church to use its assets to feed the poor. At that time, the Church controlled nearly two thousand square miles of land, overseen by the clergy and used to generate income. Now, instead of selling the produce of the land, Pope Gregory ordered it shipped to Rome and given away for free. In this way, he saved thousands of people from certain death.

        The list could go on for some time, but I think you see my point. There were many great and holy Popes to make up for a few who may or may not have been corrupt.

        That is an interesting viewpoint. I’m still not sure I agree. Yes, Jesus is the true High Priest, but He became such by becoming Man. Remember, Jesus is both fully God and fully man. We know it is possible for a human being to be High Priest. Therefore, I don’t think it is easy to call a fake, modern-day high priest in Judaism to be called a fake God or a fake Jesus exactly. In other words, just because the high priest is God incarnate now does not make any Jew who is unaware of that into a claimant to divinity by claiming to be high priest. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by saying the Pope is “claiming to be God”. I took that to mean you think the Pope is being worshipped in some way?

        The Pope is not the new “High Priest”, by the way. I was making an analogy. He is simply a representative on Earth until the Second Coming.


      • To address the claim that Peter was the first pope, please see this …

        For the 1260-year prophecy, please read the following when you have time (skip to #5) …

        For Sunday Worship, please see this …

        For information on the Eucharist, please see this …

        For information regarding the keeping of Sabbath through every century since Christ, please read the following …

        Lastly, for information about what the Vatican did for those 1260 years you can read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

        What I am referencing for JP2 is his mea culpa in either 1999 or 2000 … I can’t remember which year it was. Sorry about that. But he only admitted to 100, 000, 000.

        People like Pope Gregory I and countless other brought people into Catholicism, not Biblical Christianity. Though good things were done, that does not mean it is the church of Christ. Some of the kindest people I have ever met have been Atheists. And yet they do not represent Jesus. Kind works do not mean the person has, in a heartfelt and complete way, bent the knee to God. Especially when the doctrines espoused by that person serve to lure the unsuspecting person in front of them away from the pure teaching of Jesus Christ.

        Repented hypocrisy is one thing, but the Vatican and her leaders have lived in perpetual hypocrisy. Hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of statues, art, gold, silver, books, gowns, buildings, masonry, etc. are still part of the church when it can be sold to actually help as many people as possible.

        The pope is supposed to be the man who stands in the place of Christ. When you compare and contrast Jesus Christ to the pope, it is plain for every eye that can see that the pope is not even remotely close to Jesus.

        Jesus lived in poverty, not even having a place to lay His head, but gave the riches of Heaven to all. The popes live in luxury and opulence, but give bankrupt speeches to the world. Jesus didn’t sit on a throne, but the popes do. Jesus taught us to keep our minds set on the things above, but the popes have openly supported humanism and worldliness. Jesus preached that His Word is infallible, but the popes have torn apart, edited, and rewritten the Word of God until the point that modern versions have lost the message completely. Moreover, it was the Vatican who placed the Bible on the list of banned books for quite some time. The Vatican’s open hatred for the Word of God is obvious. I even have a post all about the quotes from them …

        “The Bible does not contain all the teaching of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members.” The Faith of Millions, pp. 153-154

        “Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice.” The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72

        “Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No…because the Bible does not have everything God taught.” A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52

        Jesus taught obedience to the Father, but the Catholic leadership has taught to obey the traditions of man over and above th commands of God. To the point that if Catholic doctrine conflicts with the Bible, Catholics are taught to adhere to the church, not the Bible.

        The list goes on and on and on … but these should suffice for now.

        Yes, every now and again you see a pope or prelate do good and kind things. That’s great! But overall their characters have not shown the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

        As for Caiaphas, though he was ordained to his position just like any other political or religious leader, no one would say that he succeeded in his role to represent the Lord. Everyone knows he failed miserably in his duties and has no part in the family of Heaven. And anyone who knows even a little bit about the Bible knows that he was a terrible representative of Jesus Christ … same goes for the popes of Rome.


      • Thank you for the links.
        Again, the Vatican is a place where the Pope currently resides, so “the Catholic hierarchy” would be more accurate. JP2 admitted to a hundred million of what?
        I agree with you that kind deeds do not necessarily make someone’s church the Church of Christ. However, you challenged me to name a Pope who had lived up to Christ’s message, such as was not a hypocrite. You were arguing that hypocrisy stains the entire history of the Catholic Church, and I was giving counterexamples to when Popes have lived up to their teachings.

        As for masonry in the Vatican, I am not sure that is a fair argument. Yes, there are many famous sculptures and much great architecture dedicated to God and the saints, but I don’t see it has hypocrisy not to do something specific with them. In comparison to Solomon’s temple, I imagine the Vatican does not seem too absurdly priced. People want there to be beautiful things near or in some of the biggest churches in the world so as to glorify God. Can you blame them? Now, obviously, it would be wrong to build such architecture by laundering money that was meant for the poor. Whether that has been done or not at any point in history, I do not know. But keeping valuable architecture to beautify places of God—I cannot blame anyone for that.

        “It is plain for every eye that can see that the pope is not even remotely close to Jesus.”—I agree with that. The Pope is a sinner as much as the rest of us. The title “Vicar of Christ” has nothing to do with personal holiness.

        I think your statements depend greatly on each individual Pope. There were some popes in history who dealt with great hardships for Christ. Many (good) popes have devoted themselves to lives of prayer. Their title is “servant of the servants of God” for a reason. But anyway, the Pope’s responsibility is to preserve the teachings of the Apostles and govern the flock. Personal holiness helps, but that is not actually the main focus here. As for the Word of God (by which I assume you mean the Bible), how so? Can you name any part of a Catholic Bible with an obvious mistranslation?
        Also, that is a myth. The Bible was never on the index of Forbidden Reading. At any point in history, you will find Catholic theologians citing it. Also, that only was condemning the Bible as the sole source of Christian teaching, not a source of Christian teaching.

        Caiaphas was a terrible high priest. That is my point. Nevertheless, he was the real high priest:
        Matthew 23:2-3: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”
        John 11:49-51: “But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.’ He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.”
        My point being, the fact that some Popes (or as you would probably say, “most”) have lived scandalous lives does not really say much at all about the papacy, just as in the Old Covenant, corrupt high priests do not say much about the high priesthood in and of itself.


%d bloggers like this: