Why do some people think the Pope is the antichrist?

[Tarpeian_Rock]

If you want an example of who the Anti-Christ is…just tune into Jimmy Swaggert Ministries…you’ll soon find out that we Catholics are following the Anti-Christ to hell…yup…the Pope…in fact most if not all Protestants teach that the Pope will be the Anti-Christ…just that fundamentalists are more vocal in their condemnation of the Papacy…Pastor Hagee from San Antonio was another who also proclaimed the Catholic church as the “Whore of Babylon”…the President of the Catholic League William Donohue had accuse him of his anti Catholic comments …he had apparently later apologized and said that his views on the Catholic Church had changed…if you scratch deep enough you’ll probably find that all Protestant televangelists hold similar views on the Pope and the Catholic Church…even if they don’t publicly express them.

Just so. The whole ”pope as the antiChrist" theme is a staple of so many fringe - and not so fringe - radio preachers, as well as Internet anti-Catholic websites. They make up supposed papal titles, then invent various numbering systems to “prove” that some or another title “equals” the dreaded 666. Then there’s the “unholy trinity” of the pope, international bankers, and the New World Order. So entertaining!

 

[MaryT777]

Just so. The whole ”pope as the antiChrist" theme is a staple of so many fringe - and not so fringe - radio preachers, as well as Internet anti-Catholic websites. They make up supposed papal titles, then invent various numbering systems to “prove” that some or another title “equals” the dreaded 666. Then there’s the “unholy trinity” of the pope, international bankers, and the New World Order. So entertaining!

Yep…I am especially entertained by the numbering systems to get to 666.
Mathematics at its finest.
Mary.

 

[steido01]

Lutherans believe the OFFICE OF THE PAPACY is AntiChrist and the Pope in it may or may not be one.

Check out the Concord book.

Thank you, Mary, for pointing out that it is the office Lutherans take issue with, and not the generally good and God-fearing men who hold it. To clarify even further, I would say that we Lutherans don’t even object to the office (indeed, many Lutheran scholars recognize the early Church’s acknowledgement of Papal primacy), but rather to what we perceive as abuse of the office.

It’s a complex issue, but in a nutshell, we only take issue when primacy is used as an endorsement of supremacy. In other words, when Lutherans say that the Pope is “anti-Christ,” we think he is acting anti-to-Christ only when he abuses the office (in our view, of course). He still is Christian and leads people to Christ. No Lutheran considers the Pope to be the big-A, end times Antichrist. That’s just silly. When it comes to the big-A Antichrist, Lutherans essentially fall in line with Roman Catholic teaching as livingwordunity described above.

Here is Philip Melanchthon’s famous caveat to the Smalcald Articles (part of the Lutheran Confessions), which represents the typical Lutheran view fairly well:

Concerning the pope I maintain that if he would [clearly] allow the gospel, we, too, may (for the sake of peace and general unity among those Christians who are now under him and might be in the future) grant to him his superiority over the bishops which he has “by human right.”

 

[JRKH]

Thank you, Mary, for pointing out that it is the office Lutherans take issue with, and not the generally good and God-fearing men who hold it. To clarify even further, I would say that we Lutherans don’t even object to the office (indeed, many Lutheran scholars recognize the early Church’s acknowledgement of Papal primacy), but rather to what we perceive as abuse of the office.

It’s a complex issue, but in a nutshell, we only take issue when primacy is used as an endorsement of supremacy. In other words, when Lutherans say that the Pope is “anti-Christ,” we think he is acting anti-to-Christ only when he abuses the office (in our view, of course). He still is Christian and leads people to Christ. No Lutheran considers the Pope to be the big-A, end times Antichrist. That’s just silly. When it comes to the big-A Antichrist, Lutherans essentially fall in line with Roman Catholic teaching as livingwordunity described above.

I would be interested in how this works for I do not see how this connects with the Scriptural description of antichrist or the spirit of antichrist as one who denies Christ, denies God etc…
Surely the papal office does not deny God or Christ nor does the papal office lie.
Of course we cannot speak to the holiness of every man who has held the office of pope but that would be another matter - as you say such things are an abuse of the office, which itself CANNOT be antichrist…

So I would have an easier time accepting that one or more pope displayed traits of an antichrist than to accept the idea that the office - and inanimate and clearly defined thing - could be either an antichrist or “the” antichrist.

Peace
James

 

[MaryT777]

Thank you, Mary, for pointing out that it is the office Lutherans take issue with, and not the generally good and God-fearing men who hold it. To clarify even further, I would say that we Lutherans don’t even object to the office (indeed, many Lutheran scholars recognize the early Church’s acknowledgement of Papal primacy), but rather to what we perceive as abuse of the office.

It’s a complex issue, but in a nutshell, we only take issue when primacy is used as an endorsement of supremacy. In other words, when Lutherans say that the Pope is “anti-Christ,” we think he is acting anti-to-Christ only when he abuses the office (in our view, of course). He still is Christian and leads people to Christ. No Lutheran considers the Pope to be the big-A, end times Antichrist. That’s just silly. When it comes to the big-A Antichrist, Lutherans essentially fall in line with Roman Catholic teaching as livingwordunity described above.

Here is Philip Melanchthon’s famous caveat to the Smalcald Articles (part of the Lutheran Confessions), which represents the typical Lutheran view fairly well:

I’ll post the pertinent part of the Concord book I was referring to later.
Mary.

 

[steido01]

I would be interested in how this works for I do not see how this connects with the Scriptural description of antichrist or the spirit of antichrist as one who denies Christ, denies God etc…
Surely the papal office does not deny God or Christ nor does the papal office lie.

Well, if you’ve got time for a lengthy read, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope is the document which defines the Lutheran understanding of the Papacy, using Scripture as reference. The Reformers laid out, in their view, how the papal office interfered with the ‘clear proclamation’ of the Gospel. To them, any doctrine that obfuscated the Gospel was, essentially, anti-Christ (note that by this definition, Lutherans themselves can by guilty of being anti-Christ - and not few have been accused by their fellows! For this reason, Lutherans hold themselves to the same standard set in the Confessions). The Reformers gave three reasons why the term applied to the Papacy (below). At least one of these (#2), does not apply in our day, since the Pope is no longer a kingmaker (one less issue keeping us from restored unity! ):

1. 
   *] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
   
   *] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
   
   *] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
   

   Of course we cannot speak to the holiness of every man who has held the office of pope but that would be another matter - as you say such things are an abuse of the office…]

   Some were certainly better men than others and we’ve been blessed with wonderful, Christian men in recent times. We would say, however, that each Pope has abused his office to a certain degree by maintaining his claims of being Vicar of Christ and of universal jurisdiction.
   

   …]which itself CANNOT be antichrist… So I would have an easier time accepting that one or more pope displayed traits of an antichrist than to accept the idea that the office - and inanimate and clearly defined thing - could be either an antichrist or “the” antichrist.

   Interesting. At some level, I guess this shows a divergence in Lutheran and Roman Catholic thought - Lutherans tend to define an action or belief as heretical or anti-Christ, and are rather reluctant to identify an* individual* as being a heretic or antichrist. I do understand how the Lutheran understanding might be difficult from a Roman Catholic perspective.
   

   Peace
   James

   And also with you! Thank you for your conversation.

 

[Church_Militant]

There is a whole lot of good info to be found with a simple search of the Ask an Apologist forum. These are relevant.

• The Rapture
• Without the Rapture, what is Revelation about?
• Where does “Left Behind” go wrong?
• The Antichrist (Fathers*)
• The Whore of Babylon
• Hunting the Whore of Babylon

Additional study:

• What Jesus Really Said About The End Of The Worldhttp://shop.catholic.com/books-1/ap...re-heaven-hell-purgatory-and-indulgences.html
• Beginning Apologetics 8: What Catholics Believe about the Second Coming, the Rapture, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and Indulgences

 

[Doxiemom]

Okay, now . Let’s put some of this in perspective.

many of us do believe that there will be a literal person who will be called Anti-Christ( sometimes called the beast). But there is also another beast called the false prophet.

These are evil people folks, pretenders. They will be appealing to the masses of people during a time of tremendous stress. The world will be looking for someone to fix everything. Not much different than what is happening today in parts of the world, only this is stuff on steroids, mega doses of steroids.

Along comes two men who manage their way into positions of power and of religion. They will be in league with other evil minded people. The stench of satan’s smoke is all around.

Is it possible that one day a man, who appears to be holy, says all the right things, does everything he is supposed to do, manages to bequile the others and get himself elected pope? Can happen.

Is it possible that the nations of the world will give sovernity over to a world goverence? you bet it can, and it is being done in increments right now.

Is it possible that islam obtains it’s dream and establishes a world wide caliphate and have universal sharia/ yes, that is it’s goal and the blood is spilled everyday to obtain it.

BIG BIG IF: that person who is evil to the core is a future pope, it is more likely he will be the man called the false prophet, because this person is involved with the establishment of the Anti-Christ’s world religion in which he eventually calls himself god.

The catholic church comes under scrutiny because of its world wide structure and its power. There are some issues speculated about concerning the ancient 'mother/child" cult. A lot of this speculation also was given prior to the world rise of Islam.

This is such a horrible subject because everyone gets angry. can’t say I blame anyone for it sounds so bad.

Truth is , it could involve Islam. or a pope. Or a pastor from San Antonio. BUT , I cannot stress this enough, these are evil pretenders. Who are devoted to satan. No one will know until it is too late.

The faithful catholics, if you are alive and a pope is involved, will survive. Your faith will save you. Your church will survive. Jesus Christ will have Come Again and the evil pretenders will have their due justice.

 

[Peebo]

Perhaps this is getting into the realm of science fiction…but with the advances in science of Artificial Intelligence and Cybernrtics…who is to say that in the not to distant future scienctists may be able to combine artificial systems with biological systems…add to that artificial intelligence…you may end up with a superhuman capable of doing and knowing things that people might take as being in the realm of the divine…please don’t take this as to mean this is what I believe…maybe I watch to much sci-fi…whacky

 

[JRKH]

Well, if you’ve got time for a lengthy read, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope is the document which defines the Lutheran understanding of the Papacy, using Scripture as reference.

Unfortunately I don’t have the time - - or really the inclination to delve that deeply…but thanks for the link…
And thanks even more for the summary below…

The Reformers laid out, in their view, how the papal office interfered with the ‘clear proclamation’ of the Gospel. To them, any doctrine that obfuscated the Gospel was, essentially, anti-Christ (note that by this definition, Lutherans themselves can by guilty of being anti-Christ - and not few have been accused by their fellows! For this reason, Lutherans hold themselves to the same standard set in the Confessions).

Ahh…I see. their use of “anti-Christ” is not necessarily synonymous with the biblical references.

The Reformers gave three reasons why the term applied to the Papacy (below). At least one of these (#2), does not apply in our day, since the Pope is no longer a kingmaker (one less issue keeping us from restored unity! ):

1. 
   *] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

1. 
   

   *] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

   *] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

   Fair enough using the understanding you gave above.
   
   That said…the “anti-Christ” of biblical reference could not be applied to the papal office because the office as defined does not deny Christ as savior or the Father or the Son…
   

   Some were certainly better men than others and we’ve been blessed with wonderful, Christian men in recent times. We would say, however, that each Pope has abused his office to a certain degree by maintaining his claims of being Vicar of Christ and of universal jurisdiction.

   Of course we would agree with you if such a claim were untrue…
   

   Interesting. At some level, I guess this shows a divergence in Lutheran and Roman Catholic thought - Lutherans tend to define an action or belief as heretical or anti-Christ, and are rather reluctant to identify an* individual* as being a heretic or antichrist. I do understand how the Lutheran understanding might be difficult from a Roman Catholic perspective.

   Actually you and I don’t see things all that differently. I agree that it is “acts” which define something as for or against the Christ. This is why I say that the term “anti-christ” cannot be applied to an “office” since and “office” does not act - people do.
   
   Additionally - I see the charge of “the pope = anti-Christ” in it’s many forms coming from those who hold to Sola Scriptura. Since the anti-Christ and the "spirit of the anti-Christ is described in the Bible and the Pope does not fit the descriptions…
   Then I think that one can legitimately ask the SS adherent how he can believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ…when scripture denies it.
   

   And also with you! Thank you for your conversation.

   Your welcome.
   I’m enjoying it.

 

[adf417]

I think it’s ridiculous because won’t the antichrist be someone who nobody suspects? Won’t everyone love the antichrist? So if someone is accused of being the antichrist, then doesn’t that mean they’re not?

I’m sure this caused great confusion last year among those that do believe this. Can you imagine the difficulties within the antichrist discussions…

“Well the antichrist has retired…I wonder who will be the next antichrist?” “Ummm…does that mean Benedict is no longer the antichrist?”

 

[Darryl_B]

I think it’s ridiculous because won’t the antichrist be someone who nobody suspects? Won’t everyone love the antichrist? So if someone is accused of being the antichrist, then doesn’t that mean they’re not?

There are many antichrists. The Bible never refers to AN antichrist. The link is just an inference. The Roman Emperors were an antichrist eg Nero, immediately prior to AD70 because they established themselves as gods worthy of worship, and they persecuted the Christians because the Christians refused to worship the emperors as gods.

I was raised in an anti-Catholic church, and we believed the Catholic Church was the suppressor of Truth. That when Jesus Christ returned (and have 1000 years sitting on a throne in Jerusalem) the Pope would stand in opposition to Jesus Christ in Jerusalem and make war with Him (ie be the Antichrist). We were taught at the time that our particular denomination was the only ones who believed this “truth”.

I am suprised by two or three things. The first is that my cult-religion was not the only ones to believe that nonsense, and the second is that I actually believed that nonsense. And the third is that I think the Catholic Church has in its possession, the Truth.

 

[mikekle]

I always think of the antichrist as someone connected with the New Age stuff, or “aliens”. That’s just my belief though. I think one day some government (probably US, no offence) will come with “real aliens” and everyone will bow to them, and the antichrist will be among them.

I think you are spot on here, it fits perfectly, plus it is highly probably the aliens will claim to have created us and therefore they are our Gods, and if people see this proof with their own 2 eyes, the majority of people will buy into this, hook, line and sinker, this will be Gods great delusion, it will fool many many people. I imagine this time period will see alot of churches closing down, due to lack of interest, or the Govt will step in and force them to close, as it would be wrong to keep worshiping Jesus, since the aliens have proven to us they are the actual Gods.

I personally would be smart enough to see thru this deception, but I fear not many others would be.

I also have a sneaky feeling this will be happening fairly soon, UFO and other ET encounters have been on the rise and all around the world, there is quite a bit of them happening every day now, whatever is going on, it is clear it is building up in frequency, eventually there will be a worldwide alien event that will kick this whole thing off.

 

[livingwordunity]

There are many antichrists. The Bible never refers to AN antichrist.

If there are many antichrists logic follows that one of these will be the last.

“The continuation of this text announces that before the Lord’s arrival there will be apostasy, and one well described as the “man of lawlessness”, “the son of perdition” (2: 3) must be revealed, who tradition would come to call the Antichrist.” - Benedict XVI, General Audience at St. Peter’s Square 12 November 2008

This is the passage from the Holy Bible that Pope Benedict XVI was referencing:

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” - 2 Thessalonian 2:1-4

 

[Darryl_B]

If there are many antichrists logic follows that one of these will be the last.

“The continuation of this text announces that before the Lord’s arrival there will be apostasy, and one well described as the “man of lawlessness”, “the son of perdition” (2: 3) must be revealed, who tradition would come to call the Antichrist.” - Benedict XVI, General Audience at St. Peter’s Square 12 November 2008

This is the passage from the Holy Bible that Pope Benedict XVI was referencing:

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” - 2 Thessalonian 2:1-4

Agreed. The lawless one, the son of perdition is only inferred to be the Antichrist, he is never directly called that, just as Pope Benedict XVI states.

 

[livingwordunity]

Agreed. The lawless one, the son of perdition is only inferred to be the Antichrist, he is never directly called that, just as Pope Benedict XVI states.

He is called the “man of lawlessness”, “the son of perdition” in the Bible, and he came to be called the (big “A”) Antichrist in Christian tradition. But the point is that all of these titles are interchangeable since they are all true descriptions of the same man of evil. The final antichrist should be distinguished in some way from others because he will be (or is) the ultimate man of not just evil but also deception. And the universally accepted Christian tradition chose to make this distinction by giving the title a big “A”.

 

[Darryl_B]

He is called the “man of lawlessness”, “the son of perdition” in the Bible, and he came to be called the (big “A”) Antichrist in Christian tradition. But the point is that all of these titles are interchangeable since they are all true descriptions of the same man of evil. The final antichrist should be distinguished in some way from others because he will be (or is) the ultimate man of not just evil but also deception. And the universally accepted Christian tradition chose to make this distinction by giving the title a big “A”.

Agreed. I was trying to establish that we can develop an understanding of what constitutes an antichrist based on the descriptions given about “antichrists”, and the description is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He who denies the Father and the Son.

Therefore the antichrist cannot be the Pope, unless there is a radical change in Catholic theology.

 

[Railsplitter]

Then again, does IT have to be a person? My wife recently heard an interview with a Father Joseph Espen (sp?) on the subject. In brief he held that it could also be anytime in history when the power of the Adversary was high. And it would manifest itself by persecution of the Christian Church and follow five steps: 1. Stigmatization - show the church as irrelevant or as a quaint medieval institution for example. 2. Marginalization - show how useless Christianity is to a Society. 3. Vilify -specifically attack and insult Christianity in the name of progress or freedom of speech. 4. Criminalize - bring the full weight of a nations justice system against Christians. 5. Persecute. Father Joseph considered that we not only in our country but in many parts of the world were already at step 4.

 

[JRKH]

So…would any religion that doesn’t follow Jesus be considered an Anti-Christ religion? And would any person that doesn’t follow any of the Christian religions be considered the/an Anti-Christ?

This question has various permutations which can effect the answer.

As described in Scripture, the anti-Christ is one who denies the Father and the son…
Denial assumes a certain level of knowledge followed by rejection - or - by extension denial could assume a refusal to learn when presented with the opportunity.
This - very briefly speaks to the individual.

When speaking to religions…I think that there needs to be a somewhat different assumption applied. Many religions that are not Christian developed at times and in places where Christianity was unknown. God was active in these places just as He was in the Holy land, and some other great religions embody very Christian principles.
Scripture teaches us of the centrality and criticality of Love - Agape - in our faith and so when examining other religions it is important to look more at what they teach than what words they use.

The above is probably somewhat murky…but these are things that can be tricky to try to explain.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

So, do you think perhaps…that any person who has studied religions fully and knows all about the events, details, and evolution of Christianity…but still doesn’t think it’s true and states as much…would be considered an “Anti-Christ”?

The key word in the above is “fully”.

Yes - I would say that the person you describe here would be considered “anti-Christ”.

Peace
James