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

[kingsan]

why is the pope considered as the anti christ which was written in the book of Revelation? Protestants in the early centuries claim this with historical records to back them up. I’m now wondering whether the catholic faith is the one really instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and the church He entrusted to St. Peter. Can anyone clear this up, please! Thank you!

 

[crazzeto]

why is the pope considered as the anti christ which was written in the book of Revelation? Protestants in the early centuries claim this with historical records to back them up. I’m now wondering whether the catholic faith is the one really instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and the church He entrusted to St. Peter. Can anyone clear this up, please! Thank you!

What historical records are they using to dupe you? Anyway, the passage they use is regarding the whore of babaylon, which some fathers interpeted as being Rome but no one ever interpeted as being the Catholic Church. The best fit for the whore, in fact is Jerusalem, rather than Rome. The best she rides, is a better fit for Rome. Consider the old testament language used to describe the ancient jewish city, she is always the harlet, the whore, the unfaithful bride.

More over consider the relationship of convinence described in Rev 17 between the whore and the beast she rides (pegan Rome). Notice like the two real world powers, they cooperate when it is expediant for them to do so, such as when they persecute Christ and the early church, but then notice in Rev 17:

drbo.org/chapter/73017.htm

16 And 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. 17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

Just like in scripture, the more powerful Rome in 70 A.D. would utterly destroy real world Jerusalem and it’s temple. This act would literally put to an end forever Old Testament thinking, with it’s animal sacrafices and usher in the new Christian age.

 

[Tomster]

why is the pope considered as the anti christ which was written in the book of Revelation? Protestants in the early centuries claim this with historical records to back them up. I’m now wondering whether the catholic faith is the one really instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and the church He entrusted to St. Peter. Can anyone clear this up, please! Thank you!

Those who consider the Roman Church to be the Beast of the Apocalypse, and the Pope as Antichrist, find the answer in Newman. Giving an account of his intellectual attitude towards 1839, he explains how, from his Protestant infancy, this persuasion had remained as a stain on his imagination: “As regards my reason,” he continues, “I began in 1833 to form theories on the subject, which tended to obliterate it; yet by 1838 I had gotten no further than to consider Antichrist as not the Church of Rome, but the spirit of the old pagan city, the fourth monster of Daniel, which was still alive, and which had corrupted the Church which was planted there. So after this indeed, and before my attention was directed to the Monophysite controversy, I underwent a great change of opinion. I saw that, from the nature of the case, the true Vicar of Christ must ever to the world seem like Antichrist, and be stigmatized as such, because a resemblance must ever exist an original and a forgery; and thus the fact of such a calumny was almost one of the notes of the Church” (Apologia Pro Vita Sua, chapter 3).

A further precision should be made at this point. The Church can be founded, in the sense of that word when applied to a workman’s laying the foundations of a building. That is to say episodically, or in so far as concerns her historical appearance. The workman may die but the building remains; his role as founder is one that cannot be handed on. Or again, the Church can be said to be founded in the sense in which that word is used of a rock or the foundations themselves, on which the weight of the building rests - that is to say, structurally and under the aspect her permanence into the present. All the Apostles founded the Church in the first sense - and it is in this that the apostolic privilege, common to the Apostles as such, consists. Peter alone founded the Church, in the second sense; hence his privilege as the shepherd of Christ’s sheep, his “trans-apostolic” privilege.

 

[stbruderklaus]

While I think trying to offer a “Protestant” answer is impossible, I will offer you a Lutheran perspective.

We tend to recognize the office of the papacy, particularly as it came to be defined in the period leading up to and through Trent, as emblematic of the anti-Christ. This is based on the perceived use of papal power and authority, abuses of which were spelled out quite well in the Lutheran confessional document entitled, “The Power and Primacy of the Pope.”

In short sketch, Lutherans understand that any person or office which claims complete dictatorial control over the Church of Christ, unconstrained or unjudged by the larger Church or even by the Holy Scriptures, who attempts to wield the Power of the Keys in the secular world and through them to do violence to the simple proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is in fact acting in the spirit of anti-christ.

Frankly, Lutherans did not confess that the papacy must always remain in this evil spirit, and we are glad to notice that the Pope no longer arrogates to himself a “divine right” to transfer the kingdoms of the world, nor does he attempt to use his power as universal bishop to kill, torture, or imprison dissenters who prefer a simpler piety and approach to the saving Gospel of Christ. Some Lutherans were happy to walk with the bishop of Rome as the western Patriarch for the good order and discipline of the Church, so long as he would stop raging against our churches and trying to find ways to kill us.

This new spirit of brotherhood in the Christian faith, despite our differences, inspires most Lutherans today to note that the bishop of Rome in our own day is not acting in an anti-christian spirit, and does not really fall fully under the condemnations of the Lutheran Confessions. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we think all his pretentions to his office are legitimate, but so long as he is willing to walk together with us in Christian charity, many of us are willing to do the same.

Grace and peace.

 

[Chi_Rho_Joe]

That’s another symptom that they can’t interpret the Bible correctly. Now is it so surprising they do that since, for starters, they reject the Real Presence of the Eucharist? It makes it a lot easier for people to denounce a person (in this case the Pope) when those people (or their peers) are throwing stones at him (or his office).

 

[stbruderklaus]

To whom are you refering?

Lutherans and Anglicans both appreciate the Real Presence, and confess that truth in our confessional documents (for that matter, so 500 million Eastern Orthodox, who also have varying opinions of the office of the papacy.) Further, we interpret the Scriptures in light of the Fathers. We might come to some different conclusions, but I don’t think the Eucharistic Mystery is the root of that disagreement.

I have no stones to throw at Pope Benedict XVI. Actually, I appreciate much of what he has done for the Christian world, both before and during his pontificate. There are things I disagree with, too. However, I can respect him as a bishop of the Church of Christ, a brother in the Lord, and a man who seems genuinely focussed on seeking Christ both for himself and those under his charge. For this, I complement him, and thank God for his witness to faith and piety.

Peace to you.

That’s another symptom that they can’t interpret the Bible correctly. Now is it so surprising they do that since, for starters, they reject the Real Presence of the Eucharist? It makes it a lot easier for people to denounce a person (in this case the Pope) when those people (or their peers) are throwing stones at him (or his office).

 

[Tomster]

To whom are you refering?

Lutherans and Anglicans both appreciate the Real Presence, and confess that truth in our confessional documents (for that matter, so 500 million Eastern Orthodox, who also have varying opinions of the office of the papacy.) Further, we interpret the Scriptures in light of the Fathers. We might come to some different conclusions, but I don’t think the Eucharistic Mystery is the root of that disagreement.

I have no stones to throw at Pope Benedict XVI. Actually, I appreciate much of what he has done for the Christian world, both before and during his pontificate. There are things I disagree with, too. However, I can respect him as a bishop of the Church of Christ, a brother in the Lord, and a man who seems genuinely focussed on seeking Christ both for himself and those under his charge. For this, I complement him, and thank God for his witness to faith and piety.

Peace to you.

Actually the Lutheran and Anglican theology regarding the Real Presence is heretical.

 

[Cristian_B]

There is not one anti-Christ, but many. Saying that the Pope is the anti-Christ is incorrect, since there are many.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Well, if you want to descend into that level of discussion, the Roman doctrine of Papal supremacy over an Ecumenical Council is heretical. Take that.

My guess is, that you have as little understanding of formally what heresy is, as you do about the theological nuances of either Lutheran or Anglican sacramental theology. Whadaya say we just play nice, and stick to the topic at hand?

Actually the Lutheran and Anglican theology regarding the Real Presence is heretical.

 

[wmscott]

why is the pope considered as the anti christ which was written in the book of Revelation? Protestants in the early centuries claim this with historical records to back them up. I’m now wondering whether the catholic faith is the one really instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and the church He entrusted to St. Peter. Can anyone clear this up, please! Thank you!

Hi Kingsan, welcome to the CAFs. The Protestants that use the Whore of Babylon and the Anti-Christ accusations against the Pope are actually ignorant of Sacred Scripture. It is nothing more than anti-Catholic bigotry and prejudice that is perpetuated from generation to generation. It is one of many tools used to do just what you are now experiencing, and that is “wondering whether the catholic faith is the one really instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and the church He entrusted to St. Peter”. It is by far a clear example of poor Christian charity to attack another Christian and his beliefs and it is certainly not Gods work. Stand firm in your faith, pray for strength to withstand those forces that would separate you from Christ and His Church. Moreover, remember the words of St Peter in 1 Peter 5:8. Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[wmscott]

Well, if you want to descend into that level of discussion, the Roman doctrine of Papal supremacy over an Ecumenical Council is heretical. Take that.

My guess is, that you have as little understanding of formally what heresy is, as you do about the theological nuances of either Lutheran or Anglican sacramental theology. Whadaya say we just play nice, and stick to the topic at hand?

Please explain “Papal supremacy over an Ecumenical Council is heretical”

 

[stbruderklaus]

My point was that this kind of theological mudslinging is pointless and fruitless. It is obvious that a Lutheran will argue against the Roman definition of papal primacy… just like one can start a war over precisely the differences between Lutherans and Romans over the Real Presence. Anyone really interested in those particular discussion topics could easily start a thread to discuss them, perhaps in light of the formal pronouncements and developed theology of the respective communions.

My hope was to return us to the question posed by the author of the thread, and keep us from a tortured exchange that was off topic. I offered a perspective from a confessional Lutheran vantage point for the benefit of the topic author. I’d be happy to dissect it, if anyone is interested in a charitable exchange.

Grace and peace.

Please explain “Papal supremacy over an Ecumenical Council is heretical”

 

[John7]

There is not one anti-Christ, but many. Saying that the Pope is the anti-Christ is incorrect, since there are many.

So you’re implying that the Pope is an antichrist. Why don’t you open up 1 John and read the following verses for once for the Biblical criteria for who is and who isn’t antichrist.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 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.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Do we see any of the Popes denying that ‘Jesus is the Christ’? NO
Do we see any of the Popes denying the ‘Father and the Son’? NO
Do we see any of the Popes not confessing the ‘Jesus Christ is come in the flesh’? NO

So why don’t we stick with what the Bible says instead siding up with some of the silly ideas of protestant men

 

[Cristian_B]

So you’re implying that the Pope is an antichrist. Why don’t you open up 1 John and read the following verses for once for the Biblical criteria for who is and who isn’t antichrist.1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 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.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.Do we see any of the Popes denying that ‘Jesus is the Christ’? NO
Do we see any of the Popes denying the ‘Father and the Son’? NO
Do we see any of the Popes not confessing the ‘Jesus Christ is come in the flesh’? NO

So why don’t we stick with what the Bible says instead siding up with some of the silly ideas of protestant men

When someone wants to poison somebody he mixes the deadly poison with good and tasty food. It is illogical for that man to just give him the poison. It would be too obvious. So if that man wants the poison to work he has to mix it with attracting and tasty food, so the target might fell in the trap.

 

[crazzeto]

When someone wants to poison somebody he mixes the deadly poison with good and tasty food. It is illogical for that man to just give him the poison. It would be too obvious. So if that man wants the poison to work he has to mix it with attracting and tasty food, so the target might fell in the trap.

I’m sorry Cristina, but I must exhort you to meditate further upon the scriptures and see if you can make them add up with what you’re attempting to claim. This particular post of yours is very far out there indeed. I say this in all Charity. Please, pray for the holy spirit, pray for guidence free from preconseved notions, and mediate upon the scriptures you’re reading, particularly here.

Remember always, God doesn’t lie, there for Jesus never lies, and Satan has no power which God did not grant him. All power comes from God.

 

[Tomster]

Well, if you want to descend into that level of discussion, the Roman doctrine of Papal supremacy over an Ecumenical Council is heretical. Take that.

My guess is, that you have as little understanding of formally what heresy is, as you do about the theological nuances of either Lutheran or Anglican sacramental theology. Whadaya say we just play nice, and stick to the topic at hand?

You guessed wrong.

Take this:

Heresy originally meant a doctrine or doctrinal attitude contrary to the common doctrine of faith. It gave, thus, the concept of an elite, adjusting doctrine to its own will. In the New Testament the word is used several times; St. Peter, the first Pope, aptly determines the sense of heresy, saying that through it the path of truth is desecrated, men are perverted and the Lord denied (2 Peter 2:1).

Tertullian explains heresy as an arbitrary choice of doctrines (sounds like Protestantism doesn’t it?), without taking account of the common regula fidei of the Church. St. Thomas reduces heresy to a type of positive infidelity, by which some have a certain faith in Christ without accepting integrally all the dogmas.

Limiting our consideration to the objective aspect (the subjective aspect belongs to moral theology), we define heresy: “A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church.” In this definition two essential characteristics of heresy are brought out: (a) opposition to revealed truth; (b) opposition to the definition of the Church magisterium. If a truth is contained in the deposit of revelation, but has not been proposed to the faithful by the Church, it is called a truth of divine faith; if the revealed truth is also defined and proposed for belief by the ordinary magisterium of the Church, it is called a truth of divine-Catholic faith. Heresy in the full sense of the word is opposed to a truth of divine-Catholic faith. If the denial concerns a revealed truth which is clear and commonly admitted as such, but has not been defined by the Church, the one who denies such a truth is called proximus haeresi (very close to heresy.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Fair enough-- you’ve got the Roman position down pretty well.

However, I’ll still ask that we play nice. I won’t plague you with Lutheran understandings of heresy (or the Orthdox, or the Anglican, etc.,) and how we percieve Romans to have slipped into it relative to papal claims. My interest here was simply to answer the thread author’s questions honestly and charitably.

Cheers.

You guessed wrong.

.

 

[Tomster]

Fair enough-- you’ve got the Roman position down pretty well.

However, I’ll still ask that we play nice. I won’t plague you with Lutheran understandings of heresy (or the Orthdox, or the Anglican, etc.,) and how we percieve Romans to have slipped into it relative to papal claims. My interest here was simply to answer the thread author’s questions honestly and charitably.

Cheers.

Thanks for trying not to pass the plague of Lutheran, Orthodox and Anglican misunderstandings (to say the least) on. I am sure that if you put Lutherans (and I am referring to all of the different strains), Orthodox (all the different strains) and Anglicans (who are imploding over doctrinal differences as we speak) into one room a consensus could not be reached over just exactly what heresy is. Not to mention how many different opinions they would give on the subject at hand.

 

[wmscott]

It is really a shame that Kingsan came here for some answers to a real issue he/she is having regarding his faith, Catholic or otherwise, and in less than a few posts, this has turned nasty. Other than a couple of posts, nothing has been posted to help this brother/sister out. I think you guys need to step back a little and deal with the OP at hand. This is not a good first impression for Kingsan. Peace.

 

[Tomster]

It is really a shame that Kingsan came here for some answers to a real issue he/she is having regarding his faith, Catholic or otherwise, and in less than a few posts, this has turned nasty. Other than a couple of posts, nothing has been posted to help this brother/sister out. I think you guys need to step back a little and deal with the OP at hand. This is not a good first impression for Kingsan. Peace.

Truth is truth! Error is error! Get real.

See post # 3.