Keith Hunt - Babylon Mysteries #8 - Page Eight   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

Babylon Mysteries #8

An un-married priesthood


                        Ralph Woodrow


     THE SPIRIT SPEAKETH expressly, that in the latter times,

some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing

spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy;

having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO

MARRY..." (1 Tim.4:1-3).

     In this passage, Paul warned that a departure from the true

faith would occur in later or latter times. "This does not

necessarily imply the last ages of the world", writes Adam Clarke

in his noted commentary, "but any times consequent to those in

which the Church then lived."1 Actually, this departure from the

faith, as those who know history understand, took place back in

the early centuries.

     The first Christians recognized the worship of pagan gods as

the worship of devils (1 Cor.10:19,21). It follows, then, that

Paul's warning about "doctrines of devils" could certainly refer

to the teachings of the pagan mysteries. He made special mention

of the doctrine of "forbidding to marry." In the mystery

religion, this doctrine did not apply to all people. It was,

instead, a doctrine of priestly celibacy. Such unmarried priests,

Hislop points out, were members of the higher orders of the

priesthood of the queen Semiramis. "Strange as it may seem, yet

the voice of antiquity assigns to the abandoned queen the

invention of clerical celibacy, and that in its most stringent


     Not all nations to which the mystery religion spread

required priestly celibacy, as in Egypt where priests were

allowed to marry. But, "every scholar knows that when the worship

of Cybele, the Babylonian goddess, was introduced into Pagan

Rome, it was introduced in its primitive form, with its celibate


     Instead of the doctrine of "forbidding to marry" promoting

purity, however, the excesses committed by the celibate priests

of pagan Rome were so bad that the Senate felt they should be

expelled from the Roman republic. Later, after priestly celibacy

became established in papal Rome, similar problems developed.


"When Pope Paul V sought the suppression of the licensed brothels

in the 'Holy City', the Roman Senate petitioned against his

carrying his design into effect, on the ground that the existence

of such places was the only means of hindering the priests from

seducing their wives and daughters."4

     Rome, in those days, was a "holy city" in name only. Reports

estimate that there were about 6,000 prostitutes in this city

with a population not exceeding 100,000.5 

     Historians tell us that "all the ecclesiastics had

mistresses, and all the convents of the Capitol were houses of

bad fame."6 

     A fish pond at Rome which was situated near a convent was

drained by order of Pope Gregory. At the bottom were found over

6,000 infant skulls.

     Cardinal Peter D'Ailly said he dared not describe the

immorality of the nunneries, and that "taking the veil" was

simply another mode of becoming a public prostitute. Violations

were so bad in the ninth century that St.Theodore Studita forbade

even female animals on monastery property! 

     In the year 1477, night dances and orgies were held in the

Catholic cloister at Kercheim that are described in history as

being worse than those to be seen in the public houses of


     Priests came to be known as "the husbands of all the women."

Albert the Magnificent, Archbishop of Hamburg, exhorted his

priests: "Si non caste, tamen caste" (If you can't be chaste, at

least be careful). Another German bishop began to charge the

priests in his district a tax for each female they kept and each

child that was born. He discovered there were eleven thousand

women kept by the clergymen of his diocese.8

"The Catholic Encyclopedia" says the tendency of some to rake

these scandals together and exaggerate details "is at least as

marked as the tendency on the part of the Church's apologists to

ignore these uncomfortable pages of history altogether"!9... 


     There is no rule in the Bible that requires a minister to be

unmarried. The apostles were married (1 Cor.9:5) and a bishop

was to be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim.3:2). Even The

Catholic Encyclopedia says, "We do not find in the New Testament

any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the

apostles or those whom they ordained."11 

     The doctrine of "forbidding to marry" developed only

gradually within the Catholic church. When the celibacy doctrine

first began to be taught, many of the priests were married men.

There was some question, though, if a priest whose wife died

should marry again.

     A rule established at the Council of Neo-Caesarea in 315

"absolutely forbids a priest to contract a new marriage under the

pain of desposition." Later, "at a Roman council held by Pope

Siricius in 386 an edict was passed forbidding priests and

deacons to have conjugal intercourse with their wives and the

Pope took steps to have the decree enforced in Spain and other

parts of Christendom."l2 

Woodrow gives more examples of Roman Catholic errors of teaching.     


1.Clarke's Commentary, vol.6, p.601. 

2.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.219. 

3.Ibid., p.220.


5.Durant, 'The Story of Civilization: The Reformation,' p.21. 

6.D'Aubigne, 'History of the Reformation,' p. 11.

7.Flick, 'The Decline of the Medieval Church,' p.295. 

8.D'Aubigne, 'History of the Reformation,' p.11.

9.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.3, p.483, art. "Celibacy."

10.Ibid., pp.483,485. 

11.Ibid., p.481.

12.Ibid., p.484.

13.Ibid., vol.11, p.625, art. "Penance." 


15.Saggs, 'The Greatness that was Babylon,' p.268. 

16.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' pp.9,10.

17.Fausset's Bible Encyclopedia, p.291, art. "High places." 

18.Clarke's Commentary, vol.2, p.562.

19.The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.14, p.779, art. "Tonsure."


21.Hislop, 'The Two Babylons,' p.222.


Woodrow does not address and answer the section in the Gospels

where Jesus told His disciples that "whoever sins you remit shall

be remitted, and whoever sins you retain, shall be retained"

(John 20:23).

I will answer the question that you may have regarding this


Is there ever a time when a disciple of Jesus has the right to

remit or retain a persons sins?

Yes, as surprising as it may sound to some of you, there is such

a time. If fact two times specifically.

The first is when a disciple of Christ is guiding and counselling

someone to "baptism" - such a disciple must make a spiritual

judgment as to the heart and mind of they who are wanting to be

baptized by them. Baptism must be accompanied before-hand with

"repentance" and repentance must involve the subject of sin, what

it is and what to repent of. All the details of these two subject

(repentance and baptism) are covered in depth on this Website.

Someone baptizing another must make a judgment call as to the

heart and mindset of the one wanting to be baptized. It may be

possible the motive for wanting baptism is not what it should be,

and should be refused, hence a retaining of sin in that sense,

towards that person. Then on the other hand, it may be judged the

heart and mind is correct towards God and sin, and so the baptism

goes ahead, and sins are remitted.

The second instance of disciples remitting or retaining sins, is

under the subject of "church disfellowship" which I have covered

in-depth in another study. I refer the reader to that study, for

the full answer.

Some may still want to argue the point of a disciple of Jesus

having the power and right to remit or retain sins. But the fact

is that verse and that instruction was said by Jesus, to His

disciples, hence there MUST be a time WHEN this is within the

right and power of a disciple of Christ.

I have given you how that can be, and it is NOT at all the

"confessional" doctrine of the Roman Catholic church.

Then there is the recent LARGE scandal (2002-03) in the Roman

Catholic church with sexual abuse on boys by some of the "clergy"

of that church organization. It went all the way to the Pope who

had to speak out about it. It has caused meetings of bishops etc.

to try and figure out what can be done to prevent all this, but

at this time, a married priesthood is not being considered. The

doctrine of an un-married priesthood is still firmly entrenched

in the Roman Catholic church - Keith Hunt.


  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

Navigation List:

Word Search: