The proto-Jesuits’ unholy crusade against the Pastoral Epistles (≥40 examples): the Vaticanus–Douay connection

By the way: Bart Ehrman is an outstanding scholar the same way a microwaved cherry tomato-and-cheese stick on a piece of bread is a slice of authentic Italian pizza.

[FYI: as always, I have nothing against individual Catholics of the most sincere faith and unfeigned love—this analysis is dedicated to an exposure of the centralized clandestine cabal spiritually abusing the hearts of (unfortunately) beguiled millions; I have every desire to see my beloved Catholic brethren of truth and spirit comprehend the true machinations of this world’s order and ultimately meet together (again) in the New Jerusalem kingdom of God to come]

The New World Order (NWO) simply entails uncountably many facets and manifested modus operandi fronts. Yet all conspiracies trace upward to a singular source—the Johannite clique of epitomized occultists whose abode for the past centuries is the Jesuit Order and Knights of Malta.¹ Zion(az)ism is but ONE “major” front movement on behalf of the Jesuits’ long(er)-term aims—we must understand that concurrent to the Romanists’ propagation of manufactured theistic manipulations i.e. cabalistically-rooted² Zionism, the bosses behind the scenes have worked ever-harder to undermine the true character and worship of God.

I will keep this introductory overview of church history brief as can be: first off, the Roman Catholic Church was NOT founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, nor His emissaries, nor any of their disciples. The true Christian faith of the 1st century—the Ephesian era of the seven churches³—was the preservation and completion of Mosaic Judaism. Christ declared in the Sermon on the Mount that the preserved intactness of the entire Torah (the full Five Books of Moses) would remain until the passing away of the heaven and earth,⁴ which isn’t until the Second Coming.⁵ “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”⁶ Oh wait, the emboldened section is missing from the modern Bible translations… as to the reason why, that’s for another day. Also: as the Apostle Peter declared in Acts: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”⁷

Well, there goes the notion of a Roman pontiff holding any divine authority to elevate man-made⁸ traditions above biblical teachings. As it turns out, the three Pastoral Epistles of the Apostle Paul—I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus—contain the most blatant rebukes of such “Romanist” (and docetic-Gnostic) dogma. Can it be a mere coincidence that these very three Pauline letters are among the most heavily attacked New Testament Epistles as it pertains to modern “scholars” virulently denying their authenticity? You decide for yourself by the end of this article.

Codex B and the Catholic Church

Modern “Protestant” Bible translations—the ESV, NRSV, NASB et al.—rely most authoritatively on roughly less than half a dozen manuscripts heralded as the “oldest and most reliable.” Out of these (Alexandrian) manuscripts dated no earlier than the 4th century, the two primary texts of note are codices Vaticanus (“Codex B”) and Sinaiticus (“Codex א”). As the very name of the former suggests, Codex B is intricately linked to the Vatican.

The irony here is nothing other than the fact that Catholic Bibles traditionally relied primarily/solely on the Vulgate with little-to-no direct Vaticanus influence, which instead is exerted in the (nominally) “Protestant” realm of scholarship. Yet the higher initiates of Catholicism hold particularly notable reverence for Codex B—the encyclopedia of Catholic Answers has this to say:⁹

Codex Vaticanus (CODEX B), a Greek manuscript, the most important of all the manuscripts of Holy Scripture. It is so called because it belongs to the Vatican Library (Codex Vaticanus, 1209).

The same website’s encyclopedia entry on the Septuagint openly declares:¹⁰

The three most celebrated MSS. [manuscripts] of the Septuagint known are the Vatican, ‘Codex Vaticanus’ (fourth century); the Alexandrian, ‘Codex Alexandrinus’ (fifth century), now in the British Museum, London; and that of Sinai, ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ (fourth century)… The ‘Codex Vaticanus’ is the purest of the three; it generally gives the more ancient text.

Logically, one must conclude that there exists a convergence of doctrine between the Vulgate and Codex Vaticanus if both are among the most highly revered biblical manuscripts in the Catholic Church—remember, the Douay-Rheims Bible was translated from the Vulgate and produced by the Jesuits during the Counter-Reformation as admitted by none other than the Catholic Crisis Magazine.¹¹

The Pastoral Epistles are entirely missing from Codex B—meanwhile, the Vulgate-derived Douay-Rheims Version (DRV) contain a semi-Gnosticized distortion of the Pastorals for the outer Catholic masses. Let’s examine some interesting cases.

The (incomplete?) list of questionable distortions

Note: I am inspecting specifically the 1899 DR American Edition; follow along and sidescroll through the chapters here (beginning with I Timothy 1 into Titus 3).

Ex. I: I Tim. 1:11

• “…according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” (KJV)

• “…which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust.” (DRV)

In the KJV—translated from the brilliantly collated Textus Receptus—the proper reading is that Paul’s knowledge is according to the glorious gospel of God, who is blessed. The Douay meanwhile changes the entire meaning by frameshifting one word, “glory”/“glorious” so that the gospel is not of God Himself but only of God’s glory. This specific manner of distortion will become a recurring theme.

(the modern translations vary—the NIV and ESV match the Vulgate/Douay reading, while the NASB, NLT, NRSV, and Amplified concur with the KJV)

Now, why? Well, according to Walter Veith, the Vulgate itself was the product of Arian influence (see way below), aka it demoted the divinity of Jesus Christ. The shifting of the gospel’s “belonging”/“source” from God to merely His “glory” appears to create an ever-convenient ambiguity to the advantage of a papal system claiming divine authority, whose figurehead styles himself the “vicar of Christ.”¹² Moving on…

Ex. II: I Tim. 1:17

• “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (KJV)

• “Now to the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (DRV)

The usage of “ages” here fits a pro-Hellenistic bias (the topic of direct Hellenistic influence upon Catholicism needs its own devoted explanation and too much is on my plate already—Prof. Walter J. Veith has uncovered a bit of this throughout his lectures) concurrent with injecting (proto-)evolutionary theories into the Bible—the usage of “ages” implies a gradual succession of time “periods” one after another.

Ex. III: I Tim. 2:2b

• “…that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” (KJV)

• “…that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity.” (DRV)

Where does the original-based TR/KJV text indicate any connotation with sexual “abstinence”? It doesn’t—all it broadly states is that the virtuous Christian should live accordingly to godly integrity. The Vulgate/DRV’s replacement/insertion of “chastity” is a nothing more than blatant propagation of semi-Gnostic, anti-sexuality bias—while Catholicism outwardly frames this as merely a prohibition of premarital sexual activity (which indeed is biblically immoral), they always push to fascinating excesses. Catholic Answers has this to say:¹³

…dating couples can adopt these basic boundaries—clothes stay on, hands stay away from erotic areas, and kisses (if they happen) don’t become makeout sessions. Then they can practice self-awareness to notice if anything else leads them to be tempted into lust and prayerfully discuss any adjustments to the boundaries.

For Catholic “chastity,” sex is, after all, for procreation, not pleasure! That is the reactionary Gnostic “natural law” dogma of Knights of Malta stooge Leonard Leo, a dark money liaison to Orange Bolshevism’s supreme emperor Donald Trump.¹⁴ Let’s also just conveniently forget that an entire book in the Hebrew Bible—the Song of Solomon—is devoted to glorifying marital sexuality. Take a look for yourself—female breasts are mentioned in an explicitly erotic context!

Catholic contempt for sexual pleasure is a reflection of their Gnostic roots—the docetic heresy of the 1st-2nd centuries was explicitly warned of by the the Apostles in the late(r) Epistles, and in summary is the notion that “spiritual = good, material = bad.” Docetic Gnosticism applied ancient Hellenistic dualism (remember, “natural law,” the prototypical basis for the theory of evolution, is Hellenistic/ancient Greek philosophy—there is nothing new under the sun¹⁵) to co-opt the New Testament and argue, “Old Testament = bad Jewish materialism, New Testament = spiritual freedom from the enslavement of the Torah.” Wait… isn’t the latter a mainstream teaching in modern Christianity throughout practically all the mainstream denominations, you ask? How deep the falsehoods seep…

Ex. IV: I Tim. 2:5-6

• “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (KJV)

• “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.” (DRV)

First off, the abundantly clear emphasis on Christ as the sole mediator is problematic towards RCC doctrine for the obvious reason that it runs in the face of Mary as “co-mediator.” Interestingly, the Vulgate/Douay didn’t appear to explicitly tamper with that aspect, and instead changed the singular “time” to plural “times.”

This Douay alteration is not found in the majority of modern (“Protestant”) translations, and my postulated instinctive impression is this: Catholic doctrine necessitates a negation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as once and for all, because that refutes the need for a constant “Eucharistic” transubstantiation. Of course, in Codex Vaticanus, the bold statement that Christ was “once offered to bear the sins of many” (in the end of Hebrews 9)¹⁶ is lacking, because the entire section from the middle of ch. 9 into the rest of the Epistle to the Hebrews is missing!

By altering “due time” to “due times” in I Tim. 2:6, a basis is thereby established in the Douay to justify “Eucharistic” literalized “sacrificing” of Christ multiple times: over and over and over…

Ex. V: I Tim. 2:15

• “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” (KJV)

• “Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (DRV)

As you have already seen above, sometimes one word of alteration makes all the difference. Consider the usage of the word “through” on the central issue of salvation: Paul elsewhere has used the phrase “through faith” in the context of redemption out of sin.¹⁷ In the KJV, Paul’s careful phrasing does not imply that a woman/wife’s salvation necessitates childbearing as the central requirement, simply that her salvation is concurrent to childbearing. Yet the Douay—by replacing “in” with “through”—ostensibly would appear to propagate this contradictory assertion that women are saved because of bearing children.

Why? Very simple: the Catholic Church’s preoccupation with the family unit’s fruitful reproduction is for the sole purpose of exploding the Catholic population. Andrew Sinclair’s 1980 nuanced analysis of “Romanmasonry” explains:¹⁸

Roman Catholic teaching about abortion has nothing to do with the ‘sanctity of human life’. That is just their story. The Roman priests also oppose contraceptives and the pill. Why? the explanation is that the priests want couples to have babies because every baby born adds one more to their ‘army’ and is a potential contributor to their funds. That is the true reason for their opposition to artificial contraception and abortion.

If a woman is having a difficulty in giving birth to a baby, the RC ‘directive’ is—‘Let the woman die, save the baby.’ The explanation for that is—if a woman cannot produce children, ‘let her die’. The RC husband can get another wife capable of producing them.

Ex. VI: I Tim. 3:1-4

• “This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;” (KJV)

• “A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.” (DRV)

There are a few specific changes in the Vulgate/Douay here:

1. “vigilant” deleted (v. 2)

2. “prudent” is added (v. 2)

3. “chaste” is added (v. 2)

4. “not greedy of filthy lucre” is deleted (v. 3)

5. “gravity” is replaced with “chastity” (v. 4)

The deletion of exhortation for vigilance is probably the least significant compared to the others. The addition of “prudence” probably carries an esoteric/insider Catholic interpretation which—according to the horse’s mouth from Catholic Answers yet again—is tied to their (catechistic?) views of “reason”¹⁹—Walter Veith’s exposés of insider Catholic doctrine have more extensively divulged into what the insider levels actually mean by “human reason” quite apart from the exoteric sanitized propaganda spoon-fed to the “outer” masses.

Addition of “chastity” in 3:2 should be obvious as to why if you read ex. III above. Ditto for the redundant insertion of “chastity” in 3:4.

The deletion of “not greedy of filthy lucre [monetary profit]” in 3:3 is most incriminatingly notable—remember, the bishops hold a prominent role over collecting alms. And the Pope, by the way, is the Bishop of Rome. Let’s take a look at the financial status of the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) centrality:²⁰

Anything else I need to clarify on here?

Ex. VII: I Tim. 3:8

• “Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;” (KJV)

• “Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:” (DRV)

Yet another insertion of “chastity”… the more “unique” note in this case exhibit—IMHO—is that the invocated command “not greedy of filthy lucre” is actually retained by the DRV this time unlike in the previous examination. Why? Perhaps because deacons traditionally were of lower ranking than bishops and were given authority over the distributive aspects of services to the “laity” as opposed to the bishops’ “collecting” roles. The “left-wing” side to Catholic social teaching, after all, is well-reflected in Pope Leo XIII’s famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum constituting a theistic mirror to the Communist Manifesto.

Ex. VIII: I Tim. 3:11

• “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” (KJV)

• “The women in like manner chaste, not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things.” (DRV)

Yet again! Still nothing new under the sun?

Ex. IX: I Tim. 3:16

• “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (KJV)

• “And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.” (DRV)

Remember what I said in the first exhibit about this pattern constituting a recurring theme? In this uniquely marvelous single verse/sentence—summarizing the Son of God’s descending from Heaven to become incarnate in earthly flesh, die a vicarious death for mankind, and return back to Heaven—the Vulgate/Douay changes one word to alter the subject from God to simply “godliness.”

Ex. X: I Tim. 4:1-5

• “Now 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, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” (KJV)

• “Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the LAST times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” (DRV)

This by far is one of if not THE most notable of the lengthy case exhibits. The DRV’s omission of “with a hot iron” in the context of a reprobate seared conscience is—to get out of the way—rather negligent. As you see, I went so far as to capitalize the pivotal change because the significance is that great.

Paul’s prophetic warning was fulfilled in the “proto”-Catholic Church’s propagation of the man-made, semi-Gnostic doctrine that Christians must a) mandate priestly celibacy and b) abstain from meat consumption certain days of the week. The former is as common knowledge as common gets. The latter also to an extent:²¹

The renowned Protestant theologian Albert Barnes observed:²²

The tenth article of the decree of the Council of Trent, in relation to marriage, will show the general view of the papacy on that subject. ‘Whosoever shall say that the married state is to be preferred to a state of virginity, or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or celibacy, than to be joined in marriage; let him be accursed!’ Compare Peter Dens' Moral Theology, pp. 497-500.

And:²³

The following questions and answers from Dr. Butler’s Catechism, will show what is the sentiment of Roman Catholics on this subject.

‘Question: Are there any other commandments besides the Ten Commandments of God? Answer: There are the commandments or precepts of the church, which are chiefly six.

Question: What are we obliged to do by the second commandment of the church? Answer: To give part of the year to fast and abstinence.

Question: What do you mean by fast-days? Answer: Certain days on which we are allowed but one meal, and ‘forbidden flesh meat.’

Paul obviously wrote this Epistle to Timothy during the 1st century. Hence when he says “latter times” as correctly copied/retained in the TR/KJV, it could refer to any era after his lifetime, and therefore the pinpoint-precise occurrence in the subsequent 2nd-4th centuries validly constitutes the fulfillment. The Vulgate/DRV failed to bother altering the broad substance of Paul’s bold warning because it would have constituted a conspicuous tampering—instead, their resorted to the most “minimal” switch of words here by merely “pushing” the applicable time frame to the very “last days” so therefore its fulfillment (according the altered Vulgate/Douay text) cannot have took place during the 2nd-4th centuries.

In fact, the response of Catholic Answers to a “question” about I Tim. 4:1-5 quotes (though without mentioning by name) the Douay:

Question: The Catholic priesthood is disproved in 1 Timothy 4:3, where Paul warns Timothy that in the last days apostates in the Church would forbid marriage. Catholic priests, contrary to the Bible, are forbidden to marry. In view of this verse, and since we're living in the last days, how can you possibly defend your priesthood?

Answer: First of all, how do you know we’re in the last days? Your question implies that because Catholic priests don’t marry these must be the last days—not a good argument. Perhaps you’re unaware that for the last 850 years (since the Second Lateran Council in 1139), all candidates for priestly ordination in the Roman rite have been required to take the vow of celibacy. By your reasoning that means we’ve been in the last days an awfully long time.

There is no doubt here that Catholic Answers is expressly quoting from the Vulgate-derived DRV translation since even standard modern “Protestant” versions relying heavily on Codex Sinaiticus—the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, and NASB—all concur with the KJV’s reading of “latter” times. Only to the Catholic audience was it necessary to alter “later”/“latter” times into “last” times to seemingly remove the stigma of Paul’s prophetic warning from any feeling of direct attachment.

Ex. XI: I Tim. 4:12

• “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” (KJV)

• “Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity.” (DRV)

Yes, yet again. Nothing new still under the solar sphere of orange flames.

Ex. XII: I Tim. 4:14

• “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (KJV)

• “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” (DRV)

“Presbytery” carries a broader connotation—“priesthood” meanwhile reinforces the Catholic doctrine of a priest/laity difference whereby one class of initiated ranks are given authority over the masses. Hopefully it’s becoming increasingly self-explanatory at this point.

Ex. XIII: I Tim. 5:2

• “The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.” (KJV)

• “Old women, as mothers: young women, as sisters, in all chastity.” (DRV)

Same deal as before… moving on…

Ex. XIV: I Tim. 5:17-21

• “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. … Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. … I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (KJV)

• “Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine: … Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. … I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by declining to either side.” (DRV)

Ditto with ex. XII: “elders” could simply mean anyone of relative leadership/guiding role within a subgroup of Christian gathering, while “priests” in the Catholic context imply initiated exaltation into a special level of authority.

Ex. XV: I Tim. 5:22

• “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.” (KJV)

• “Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.” (DRV)

Must be getting noticeably boring?

Ex. XVI: I Tim. 5:24-25

• “Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.” (KJV)

• “Some men's sins are manifest, going before to judgment: and some men they follow after. In like manner also good deeds are manifest: and they that are otherwise, cannot be hid.” (DRV)

At the very moment my brain has half-fused and the time occupied to type up the bulk of this posting’s substance means I am not enthusiastic about right now scouring through Walter Veith’s three dozen Total Onslaught episodes to find the exact video/timestamp where he mentions an apparently instituted papal doctrine of “absolution in advance.” Whether that is the relevant matter here, I am not of the most absolute certainty in the very meantime, so you decide from prayerful deliberation.

Ex. XVII: I Tim. 6:5

• “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (KJV)

• “Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness.” (DRV)

In many cases, the DRV waters down or outright removes the strength/“teeth” of the emphasis preserved in the KJV. This specific case scenario is all the extra intriguing, because Paul as clear-cut in the preserved TR/KJV teaches that the faithful Christian is simply to distance themselves from false teachers/heretics and not engage further.

This of course was not the approach of the reactionist-controlled Catholic Church in the Dark Ages, when dissenters were marked for torture and death under the directives of the papal authority. It sure is therefore convenient that the Vulgate/Douay removed Paul’s command to withdraw from heretics so the Pauline biblical contradiction to the concept of earthly church-ordained physical punishment of “heretics” is removed.

Ex. XVIII: I Tim. 6:11

• “But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.” (KJV)

• “But thou, O man of God, fly these things: and pursue justice, godliness, faith, charity, patience, mildness.” (DRV)

Here’s a new “trend” that will be repeated a few times. The Vulgate/Douay replaces “righteousness” with “justice”—now surely, this is innocuously trivial, right? …no.

In the Bible as plainly read, “righteousness” is an unnegotiably objective standard of/from God²⁴ and comes by faith apart from the works of the law.²⁵ Meanwhile, the translated word “justice” (at least in the KJV) is found nowhere in the New Testament and—due to its much, much less frequent occurrence in the Old Testament passages it is found in—is easier to contort based on societal relative man-made standards.

We must once again turn to one of the horse’s many mouthpieces, Catholic Answers, to hear from the primary sources themselves what their outspoken belief system is—these are only a few extracted excerpts:²⁶

A claim in justice, or a right in the strict sense, is a moral and lawful faculty of doing, possessing, or exacting something. If it be a moral and lawful faculty of doing something for the benefit of others, it belongs to the class of rights of jurisdiction.

…

Justice requires that all should have what belongs to them, and so the just man will render to the society, or State, of which he is a member, what is due to it. The justice which prescribes this is called legal justice. On the other hand, the individual subject has claims against the State. It is the function of the State to protect its subjects in their rights and to govern the whole body for the common good. Authority for this purpose is given to the State by nature and by God, the Author of man’s social nature.

I unfortunately am not sacrificing my remainder half-braincell to read the entire word salad (“sorry”). All you really need to know here is that hidden behind the veil of sugarcoated euphemisms is the traditional papal doctrine of ultramontanism—“all power in one man.” Therefore “justice” to the insider/initiated ranks at the highest echelons of Catholicism is defined as whatever the papal authority deems just.

It has long been argued that the Catholic “INRI”—while to the exoteric/outer masses presented as “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum” (“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews [Judeans]”)—in its Jesuitic insider meaning is actually “Iustum, Necar, Reges, Impious” (“it is JUST to exterminate/annihilate heretical kings/rulers”). Seeing the picture now of how ultramontanist, reactionary Catholicism actually views “justice” and why the Vulgate/Douay quietly uses this word?

Ex. XIX: I Tim. 6:12

• “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.” (KJV)

• “Fight the good fight of faith: lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art called, and hast confessed a good confession before many witnesses.” (DRV)

Not even hiding their true intent of trying to sneak a validation of the papal (priest-centered) “confessional” doctrine in there—next!

Ex. XX: I Tim. 6:16b

• “…to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” (KJV)

• “…to whom be honour and empire everlasting. Amen.” (DRV)

In the TR/KJV, the emphasis is that all honor and power is vested in Jesus Christ alone. Meanwhile, the Douay’s replacement of “power” with “empire” ostensibly necessitates the implied given authority to an earthly kingdom since Paul wrote the Epistle in the 1st century and the New Jerusalem does not come till after the end of mortal humanity as we know it. And with an “empire” of Christ implies its divine authority, precisely the conclusive doctrine of Papal-Caesarist ultramontanism and its emphasis on an earthly kingdom claiming to represent Christ on earth.

Ex. XXI: II Tim. 1:8

• “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;” (KJV)

• “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God,” (DRV)

The Vulgate/Douay here de-emphasizes Paul’s (biblical) assertion that the true Christian must individually suffer in the walk with Jehovah.

Ex. XXII: II Tim. 1:10

• “But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:” (KJV)

• “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and incorruption by the gospel:” (DRV)

Highly blatant Gnosticism here—remember what the Apostle John said of the spirit of antichrist and its known manifestation?²⁷

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

In II Tim. 1:10, the TR/KJV properly renders Paul’s statement that Jesus Christ, the Savior, came to the planet. The Vulgate and its resulting Jesuit-crafted Douay translation—as a product of Jerome’s evident Gnostic syncretist influences—(attempts to) demote Christ’s physical appearing to a mere “illuminated” manifestation. This is also of course highly occultic signal language.

Ex. XXIII: II Tim. 2:3

• “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.” (KJV)

• “Labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” (DRV)

Ditto com. case XXI.

Ex. XXIV: II Tim. 2:4

• “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” (KJV)

• “No man, being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses; that he may please him to whom he hath engaged himself.” (DRV)

Paul’s original emphasis to Timothy here is simply an analogy: the good soldier of Christ must endure hardness,²⁸ just as no soldier in literal warfare can partake in a normal (civilian) life. Meanwhile, the Vulgate/Douay “literalizes” Paul’s analogy in 2:4 into an implication that no “soldier to God”—and hence follower of Christ—can compatibly hold any secular interactions.

This of course is yet another blatant promotion of the ultramontane doctrines stemming out of Papal-Caesarist attributes, denigrating anything “secular” as an evil to be scorned rather than to be graciously exhibited Christ’s love to.

Ex. XXV: II Tim. 2:10

• “Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (KJV)

• “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with heavenly glory.” (DRV)

Yet again, (at best) a watering-down… next…

Ex. XXVI: II Tim. 2:14

• “Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.” (KJV)

• “Of these things put them in mind, charging them before the Lord. Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.” (DRV)

The Vulgate/DRV here distorts the meaning entirely: the TR/KJV says simply to avoid only the words of debate that yield no profit, while the Vulgate/Douay says to avoid debating entirely because none of it products a (net) profit. For the ultramontane Catholic warrior dedicated to the service of the Vatican, their directive is to obey the papal authority without questioning, after all.

Ex. XXVII: II Tim. 2:22

• “Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” (KJV)

• “But flee thou youthful desires, and pursue justice, faith, charity, and peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” (DRV)

Hopefully you remember what I said above in ex. XVIII about how “righteousness” is replaced with “justice” several times?

Ex. XXVIII: II Tim. 3:16

• “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (KJV)

• “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,” (DRV)

Ibid.

Ex. XXIX: II Tim. 4:1

• “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;” (KJV)

• “I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom:” (DRV)

According to Prof. Walter Veith, the Vulgate is of Arian influence and demotes the divinity of Jesus Christ:

Here in II Tim. 4:1, the title “the Lord” is removed from Christ in the Vulgate/Douay, leaving the reading as “God and Jesus Christ” which insinuates—especially relative to the KJV—that Jesus is not (equal to) God.

The replacement of “at his appearing” with “by his appearing” is also a noted alteration—Prof. Veith probably explained the subject matter somewhere in this two-hour-long lecture:

Ex. XXX: II Tim. 4:6

• “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.” (KJV)

• “For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand.” (DRV)

Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy was probably written shortly prior to his martyrdom. His prophetic declaration of an impending “offering” plainly means what it says—meanwhile, “sacrifice” carries a more significant connotation especially in light of the fact that Christianity’s fundamental core is Christ’s sacrifice for sin once and for all. To imply that Paul was also “sacrificed” appears to feed into the doctrine of particular elevated “saints” as nearing the status of God, a doctrine of insider occultists.

Ex. XXXI: II Tim. 4:8

• “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (KJV)

• “As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly.” (DRV)

Yet again…

Ex. XXXII: II Tim. 4:16

• “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” (KJV)

• “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me: may it not be laid to their charge.” (DRV)

The Vulgate/Douay here in its typical fashion waters down a beautiful emphasis, and the context is notable: Paul in spite of grievously painful abandonment prays to God in forgiveness that his forsakers not be punished. Since papal doctrines emphasis hierarchical authority, Paul’s exhibited exemplary/leadership role of longsuffering forgiveness towards those who failed to return kindness unto him isn’t particularly helpful for a reactionary entity emphasizing laity subordination to the initiated priesthood, and thereby any exhibited forgiveness from the top down must be at the very least de-emphasized.

Ex. XXXIII: Tit. 2:2

• “That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.” (KJV)

• “That the aged men be sober, chaste, prudent, sound in faith, in love, in patience.” (DRV)

This old friend again, in case you forgot!

Ex. XXXIV: Tit. 2:7-8

• “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” (KJV)

• “In all things shew thyself an example of good works, in doctrine, in integrity, in gravity, the sound word that can not be blamed: that he, who is on the contrary part, may be afraid, having no evil to say of us.” (DRV)

The TR/KJV’s plainly implied meaning is that the biblically sound Christian is to live such a life of godly righteousness, integrity, and meekness, to the point that ill-faith scoffers and scorners find themselves self-convicted in a realization of their own shame by comparison. The Vulgate/Douay meanwhile changes “ashamed” to “afraid,” essentially implying that the end goal is to incite panic and fear in the non-Christian rather than bring him to moral conviction.

Remember, the right-wing theocratic totality of Papal Caesarism leads to the enforcement of punishing “heresy,” and therefore in the Vulgate/DRV view the intent is none other than to repress and intimidate the non-conformer into subservience under threat of church/state-sanctioned punishment.

Ex. XXXV: Tit. 2:11

• “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,” (KJV)

• “For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men;” (DRV)

While the phrase “God our Savior” in the NT does appear a number of times, its appearing in the TR/KJV is used only in the context of God as the loving Savior and trust of the believing Christian, not in a manner of exclusivity to imply an initiated select few God inherently favors with intrinsic respect of persons above all else.

Note what the TR/KJV reading implies: that the God who brings salvation to humanity reaches out to ALL men, because: He “will have all men to be saved.”²⁹ Meanwhile, the Vulgate/DRV presents God in an exclusive context of only being the God of the initiated chosen and removing the emphasis of His salvation-bringing in the context of His grace appearing to all men.

Occultic inner circles are as right-wing and reactionary as it gets—the conformative ideology values a special group of elites as the supremacist “chosen” while the outer catechumen masses are seen as a horde of inferior (useful) idiots.

Ex. XXXVI: Tit. 2:12

• “Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;” (KJV)

• “Instructing us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world,” (DRV)

Yet again, seemingly-innocuous insertion of “justice” replacing “righteousness.”

Ex. XXXVII: Tit. 2:13

• “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” (KJV)

• “Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” (DRV)

More Gnostic corruption in the Vulgate—the physical appearing of Jesus Christ at the Second Coming—as correctly recorded in the TR/KJV—is reduced to a mere spiritualization in the Douay, which states instead via a few clever deceptive word/grammatical alterations that it’s not Jesus Christ Himself who physically appears, rather only His glory which comes. And what if the agenda all along is that there is a Satanic counterfeit to feign Christ’s glory? This of course veers into a whole entirely eerie subject matter of its own and isn’t for today…

Ex. XXXVIII: Tit. 3:1

• “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,” (KJV)

• “Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, to obey at a word, to be ready to every good work.” (DRV)

The TR/KJV rendition records Paul’s command to Titus in broad terms of obeying earthly authorities in charge—the DRV replaces and inserts “at a word” to imply that the servant of God must obey the earthly powers in charge without hesitation and question. Sound a bit like this section of the Jesuits’ “Secret Oath”? Just me?

…I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, EVEN AS A CORPSE or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.

Ex. XXXIX: Tit. 3:2

• “To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.” (KJV)

• “To speak evil of no man, not to be litigious, but gentle: shewing all mildness towards all men.” (DRV)

Same implied idea in the Vulgate/Douay as the previous exhibit—dissent is to be discouraged and suppressed. Whereas the TR/KJV rendering of Paul’s command to Titus is a rebuke against unruly troublemakers, the DRV reading holds a negative stance towards all dissident argument and debate. Don’t you dare question the mitre-donning Supreme Leader and his total divine authority as God incarnate!

Ex. XL: Tit. 3:5

• “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;” (KJV)

• “Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;” (DRV)

Last exhibit, and as always nothing is new under- yes, I know, you know.

Conclusive full circle

The ancient Gnostic war on biblical apostolic Christianity—in its true form the “antitypical” fullness of Mosaic Judaism—could never accept the New Testament in its original form as a compatible expositer of its own occult/cabalistic doctrines, and therefore warred in the realm of manuscript preservation to remove the NT’s anti-Gnostic condemnations and insert “creeping” pro-Gnostic bias. The concentration of Paul the Apostle’s forthright and highly frequent anti-Gnostic injunctions in the three Pastoral Epistles of I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus, were of problematic headaches for a) Marcion the leading 2nd-century docetic Gnostic, b) the proto-Catholic Church in the 4th century, and c) modern-day “scholars” whose anti-Judaic and anti-Christian bias tarnishes any supposed validity of their entire research and bogus “scholarship.” All three camps here concur in denying Pauline authorship of the Pastorals and promote the false view that Christianity is of Gnostic origin.

Yet the exclusion of the “esoteric” doctrine to only the clandestine “insider” cabal necessitates the provision of a “halfway” compromised, watered-down “exoteric” doctrine to the catechumen/masses since for the Catholic Church at the early outset to openly towards the public deny the canonicity of the Pastorals altogether would have severely jeopardized their public standing. Therefore their only option for keeping the beguiled masses sufficiently entrapped was to simultaneously produce a falsified, modified version of the Pastorals in the Latin Vulgate subsequently translated by Jesuit operatives into the Douay-Rheims Bible as the “insider” Codex Vaticanus (B) boasts the Papal-Caesarist insiders’ total denial of those Pauline letters altogether.

1. Spoiler: the Vatican/Papacy is only the outward manifestation of Catholicism’s leadership for the masses. The true ideology of insider “Catholicism” is not the Catholicism sincere Catholics believe, but rather the highest levels of Baphometic worship tracing back to the Knights Templar. It is this author’s conclusion that the two heads of the Greco-Roman deity Janus constitute nothing more than the devil’s “light” and “dark” manifestations respectively as Lucifer and Satan.

2. Joseph Brewda (Nov. 2, 1990), “The cult origins of the fundamentalists behind the ‘Temple Mount’ plot,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XVII, no. XLII, p. 36.

3. Rev. 2:1-7.

4. Matt. 5:17-19.

5. II Pet. 3:10.

6. Lk. 4:4.

7. Acts. 5:29.

8. Not that the “traditions” to their core were necessarily all the inventions of sinful men, but rather a particular father of theirs… (Jn. 8:44)

9. U. Benigni, “Codex Vaticanus,” Catholic Answers Encyclopedia.

10. A. Vander Heeren, “Septuagint,” Catholic Answers Encyclopedia.

11. Michael Warren Davis (Aug. 30, 2019), “Scrap the Jesuits and Start Over,” Crisis Magazine.

12. William H. W. Fanning, “Vicar of Christ,” Catholic Answers Encyclopedia.

13. Rachel Hoover Canto (Feb. 20, 2024), “Chastity in Dating: Not Just ‘No Sex,’” Catholic Answers Magazine.

14. Jay Michaelson (Jul. 24, 2018), “The Secrets of Leonard Leo, the Man Behind Trump’s Supreme Court Pick,” The Daily Beast.

15. Ecc. 1:9.

16. Heb. 9:28.

17. Rom. 3:25, 30; Gal. 3:8, 14; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9; Col. 2:12; II Tim. 3:15; Heb. 11.

18. Andrew Sinclair (1980), “The Great Silence Conspiracy : a fully documented exposure of Romanmasonry (i.e. Catholic Action) and Fascism,” p. 31.

19. Joseph F. Delaney, “Prudence,” Catholic Answers Encyclopedia.

20. Shane Croucher (Dec. 5, 2014), “How rich is the Vatican? So wealthy it can stumble across millions of euros just ‘tucked away,’” International Business Times.

21. Archbishop Hebda, “Why don’t Catholics eat meat on Fridays?” Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis.

22. “Barnes’ Note: I Timothy 4,” Bible Hub.

23. Ibid.

24. Matt. 6:33.

25. Gal. 2:21, 3:6-8, 21 (com. Rom. 3:28).

26. T. Slater, “Justice,” Catholic Answers Encyclopedia.

27. I Jn. 4:2-3.

28. II Tim. 2:3.

29. I Tim. 2:4.