Why is the pope considered the anti christ by the protestants?

[_L]

I suppose I am from at least the partial preterist view of the end times, and in regards to all this harlot business, I am of the mindset that the harlot is the old spiritually bankrupt Jerusalem/ jewish nation of that day. See chapter 9 of the Prophet Hosea

Hosea 9

[1] Rejoice not, O Israel! Exult not like the peoples; for you have played the harlot, forsaking your God. You have loved a harlot’s hire upon all threshing floors.[2] Threshing floor and winevat shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail them.[3] They shall not remain in the land of the LORD; but E’phraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean food in Assyria.[4] They shall not pour libations of wine to the LORD; and they shall not please him with their sacrifices. Their bread shall be like mourners’ bread; all who eat of it shall be defiled; for their bread shall be for their hunger only; it shall not come to the house of the LORD. [5] What will you do on the day of appointed festival, and on the day of the feast of the LORD?[6] For behold, they are going to Assyria; Egypt shall gather them, Memphis shall bury them. Nettles shall possess their precious things of silver; thorns shall be in their tents.[7] The days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come; Israel shall know it. The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad, because of your great iniquity and great hatred.[8] The prophet is the watchman of E’phraim, the people of my God, yet a fowler’s snare is on all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God.[9] They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gib’e-ah:he will remember their iniquity, he will punish their sins.[10] Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your fathers. But they came to Ba’al-pe’or, and consecrated themselves to Ba’al, and became detestable like the thing they loved.[11] E’phraim’s glory shall fly away like a bird --no birth, no pregnancy, no conception![12] Even if they bring up children, I will bereave them till none is left. Woe to them when I depart from them![13] E’phraim’s sons, as I have seen, are destined for a prey;E’phraim must lead forth his sons to slaughter.[14] Give them, O LORD --what wilt thou give?Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.[15] Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deedsI will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels.[16] E’phraim is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Even though they bring forth, I will slay their beloved children.***[17] My God will cast them off, because they have not hearkened to him; they shall be wanderers among the nations. ***

note the wanderers among nations part, how after Titus and his legions destroyed the temple the diaspora began where the Jews were scattered through out the world.

and also read Revelation 17:16

16And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire.

This verse sounds symbolic of the Roman Empire that destroyed Jerusalem to me.

 

[LutheranPietism]

Back to the question again, The reason that the Popes became called the antichrist during the reformation was due to their utterly un-Christlike lifestyles and rulings in those years. The Popes of the time period were abusing their Papal authority to raise money for lavish lifestyles, illigitimate children, building projects and wars, etc. by the sale of indulgences, etc. This is very well documented even by the Catholic Church itself (not just made up by the protestants) I think even worse to the Reformers was the lifestyles of the Popes such as Pope Alexandar VI, not to mention Leo X. These men were totally unregenerate and not even pretending to be, and were merely wearing the mantle of Popehood to advance their own ambitions and desires. This is what spurred the antichrist label. According to Wikipedia antichrist means

" one who fulfills Biblical prophecies concerning an adversary of Christ while resembling him in a deceptive manner. The antichrist will seemingly provide for the needs of the people but deny the ultimate salvation"

They maybe had not yet fulfilled Biblical Phrophesy, (I think some tried to use the seven hills as pointed out ealier on this thread), however, they were well on their way to being Christ’s adversary and yet being deceptive about it by wrapping themselves in the most powerful and should be holiest position of Western Christendom the office of the Pope.

These very corrupt Popes brought down upon themselves and the Church the Reformation by forcing Luther to post the 95 thesis etc. As a side note, not being a Catholic, I have often wondered how the Catholic Church interprets these Popes that were blatently in error in just their personal lifestyles not mention their papal bulls, as to whether they were infallible or not? However, I think I will open a new thread with that question as it may be slightly off topic.

I fall to the position of most of the protestants on the thread that after the reformation gained strength the Catholic Church was forced to return to more conservative fundamental Popes for the most part and thus I do believe that without the Reformation the Catholic Church would be in a far more precarious situation then it is in today. I agree totally with many of the positions of the current Catholic Church and its Popes during my short lifetime. I do not feel the Pope to be the antichrist and I don’t think I have ever heard someone call him the antichrist except in the old writings of the reformers. I cannot agree with all otherwise I would be a Catholic. However, the most important thing is Christ and Christ crucified and in Him and Him alone may we find unity and fellowship.
God’s Peace…

 

[Izdaari]

Yeah, protestantism has been described as a river a mile wide and an inch deep. It has also been described as an amoeba that multiplies by dividing itself. Current estimates [depending on which source one believes] is 30,000 - 42,000 protestant denominations worldwide. And all in just 500 years. Pray tell how many in the next 500 if the Second Coming is delayed that long.

/shrug

I am Protestant only by definition: Since I’m not Catholic or Orthodox, I’m Protestant by default, that being the only remaining category.

None of that means anything to me: I don’t follow Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism: I follow the living Christ. Some of the writings of the Reformation leaders, including Luther and Calvin, have helped me do that. But so too have the writings of Orthodox and Catholic authors, including the current Pope. A Christian is a Christian, no matter what tradition they come from.

 

[inkaneer]

Back to the question again, The reason that the Popes became called the antichrist during the reformation was due to their utterly un-Christlike lifestyles and rulings in those years. The Popes of the time period were abusing their Papal authority to raise money for lavish lifestyles, illigitimate children, building projects and wars, etc. by the sale of indulgences, etc. This is very well documented even by the Catholic Church itself (not just made up by the protestants) I think even worse to the Reformers was the lifestyles of the Popes such as Pope Alexandar VI, not to mention Leo X. These men were totally unregenerate and not even pretending to be, and were merely wearing the mantle of Popehood to advance their own ambitions and desires. This is what spurred the antichrist label. According to Wikipedia antichrist means

" one who fulfills Biblical prophecies concerning an adversary of Christ while resembling him in a deceptive manner. The antichrist will seemingly provide for the needs of the people but deny the ultimate salvation"

They maybe had not yet fulfilled Biblical Phrophesy, (I think some tried to use the seven hills as pointed out ealier on this thread), however, they were well on their way to being Christ’s adversary and yet being deceptive about it by wrapping themselves in the most powerful and should be holiest position of Western Christendom the office of the Pope.

These very corrupt Popes brought down upon themselves and the Church the Reformation by forcing Luther to post the 95 thesis etc. As a side note, not being a Catholic, I have often wondered how the Catholic Church interprets these Popes that were blatently in error in just their personal lifestyles not mention their papal bulls, as to whether they were infallible or not? However, I think I will open a new thread with that question as it may be slightly off topic.

I fall to the position of most of the protestants on the thread that after the reformation gained strength the Catholic Church was forced to return to more conservative fundamental Popes for the most part and thus I do believe that without the Reformation the Catholic Church would be in a far more precarious situation then it is in today. I agree totally with many of the positions of the current Catholic Church and its Popes during my short lifetime. I do not feel the Pope to be the antichrist and I don’t think I have ever heard someone call him the antichrist except in the old writings of the reformers. I cannot agree with all otherwise I would be a Catholic. However, the most important thing is Christ and Christ crucified and in Him and Him alone may we find unity and fellowship.
God’s Peace…

So do you leave the true church because one of its members, or even a lot of its members sins? I know there were a lot of popes in the Middle Ages who were rogues but not one of them committed any sin worse than that of Peter. Peter denied knowing Christ. Did it three times to boot. People can murder but still not deny Christ.

Since the Middle Ages we have had a majority of popes who were truly saintly men. So why haven’t the protestants come back to the true church? If the wickedness of the popes was the cause as you suggest then the holiness of the subsequent popes should bring them back. Frankly I don’t believe it. The real cause was that Luther was a victim of parental abuse and rebelled against authority whether it be his parents, the Augustinians, the king or the Church. he was the “Burger King” of christianity who wanted it “his way”. Were there abuses in the Church? Sure, but the Church has always been under attack by the forces of hell both from within and without. But Jesus said that the Church prevails, not hell. The so called “reformation” reformed nothing. It was a rebellion against the Church established by Jesus Christ just like Arianism, Nestorianism and all the other heretical sects before and since.

Seems to me that protestants have a problem distinguishing between infallibility and impeccability. It would be nice if we were impeccable but the Church is not impeccable. It is a church of sinners desirous of becoming saints and that is true of the Pope on down to the person in the pew. Jesus never promised that the church would be impeccable. He said it would be infallible. It would be guided by the Holy Spirit into all Truth. It would not teach error. Now go back to those rogue popes of the Middle Ages whose lived lives of sin and name me one pope who taught error. You can’t do it. Protestants have been trying for 500 years to find just one single solitary instance where a pope actually taught error. The result? Zip, zero, zilch, nada. So your reason for the protestant revolt is fraudulent. For Luther it was a personal problem with authority but at a time when Nationalism was stirring the minds of people in Europe it was a means for the German princes who supported him to force political change so they could carve out for themselves greater power from the German king.

 

[inkaneer]

/shrug

I am Protestant only by definition: Since I’m not Catholic or Orthodox, I’m Protestant by default, that being the only remaining category.

None of that means anything to me: I don’t follow Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism: I follow the living Christ. Some of the writings of the Reformation leaders, including Luther and Calvin, have helped me do that. But so too have the writings of Orthodox and Catholic authors, including the current Pope. A Christian is a Christian, no matter what tradition they come from.

No, you are not protestant by default. You are protestant because protestantism today has continually splintered and fractured dividing itself into more and more sub groups. You are merely one of those subgroups. All this because protestantism has no authority to define doctrine. Protestantism is a cafeteria typeof christianity where you can pick and choose what you want or don’t want to believe. Now I understand some “protestant” denominations are denying the divinity of Jesus. Once the apple falls from the tree and rolls down the hill there is no going back.