The Beast Hates the Harlot

Let a Protestant elaborate on the Apocalypse, not necessarily a Lutheran or Anglican, but more like someone who could be going to a "Bible school" instead of to a "faculty of Theology" or "seminar". They will identify, over most of the past 2000 years, Catholicism as the Harlot and Papacy as the beast, or at least as the Fourth beast component of the beast.

Let's suppose some kind of Catholicism could be the harlot. Neither saying nor denying it is, but let's suppose it could be.

Would the Papacy figure as beast, if so?

Apocalypse interpreter or "third eagle of the Apocalypse, co-prophet of the endtimes" William Tapley was right now praying for apostate Catholics:

Pray for a Church that has Lost the Faith as Mary Prophesied
"Diffusé en direct il y a 78 minutes" | thirdeaglebooks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMVZznTryAk

And Pope Michael has made a point of preferring priests obedient to the Rome he considers apostate over some calling it out as apostate also, namely SSPX and sedevacantists proper. He thinks they at least try to follow a pope, even if it's the wrong pope.

Now, by contrast, a Protestant calling out the Catholic Church as harlot will be far more hateful of her .... and include more centuries in the harlot description.

Could Protestantism have more to do with the Beast than papacy has? I certainly think so./HGL

Ah, these opponents of Catholic Continuity ...

Sample 1:

This was a question on quora:

Is any Catholic priest able to explain quietly to James Hough that Jesus created Christianity, but the Catholic church only came into existence in the early 4th century, aided by Constantine?

This was - is still visible in notifications - James Hough's beginning to an answer:

+JMJ+

Oh my! I’ve had some people try to claim things which are anti-Christian and anti-historical, but this one takes the cake.

Upon which, he gives a very thorough and good answer with ample historical documentation.

It is not just anti-historical, as James Hough mentions, Constantine founded no Church, he only legalised an already existing one, it is not just anti-Christian, as the claim if true would cut historical Christianity off from the New Testament, but it is also dementedly anti-Catholic, a conspiracy theory pretending that all Catholic priests "really know" that the Catholic claim is bogus and could "quietly" explain that to James Hough so he "doesn't embarass" himself by "excessive gullibility". You know, confronted with the real world of religiously and historically literate people able to confront James Hough on quora with the facts ...

I stated that this was a question, I wanted to give an answer independently of James Hough, but the question had been deleted, and I wanted to share his answer with my followers on quora, but couldn't share.

Either James Hough is too illiterate about Protestant high strung Evangelical stuff to know that this is a real issue with some Protestants who aren't polite ecumenical Anglicans ... or someone on quora was dissatisfied with James Hough giving a good answer.

Sample 2:

The Baptist pastor and Ruckmanite Matt Singleton endorses an alternative continuity theory, namely Baptist or Anabaptist Continuity.

Here I gave a good debate back in 2018 against his claims, recently updated by Pastor Matt Singleton claiming I had ignored his other post, which I had up to then:

BIBLE SMACK : a case for the Waldenses ancient origin
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/03/case-for-waldenses-ancient-origin.html

Here I just recently, day before yesterday, attend to his other post:

BIBLE SMACK : Who is the New Testament Church?
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/03/who-is-new-testament-church.html

Personal conclusion, both samples:

Reminds me of Muslims who think Gospel of Philip is the original Injeel, even if the first example was found in the 16th C., or of Jews who claim Yeshu was executed by stoning in pre-Roman times and that that was the origin of Christianity, never bother about history./HGL