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

[inkaneer]

My intent was not to ignore anything… this kind of forum is difficult to cover all elements of a period in such short posts.

However, we must be careful not to mash Lutherans in with general Protestantism… there are many significant differences. But naturally, in an age where Church and State were entirely intertwined, there were abuses all around. The Reformers (at least the Lutherans) argued for a division of powers, harkening back to Augustine’s Two Kingdom argumentation, and so were less likely to use the State for the persecution of Christians, though the Lutheran princes did on occassion… but Rome continued to argue that the pope held a divine right over not only the Church but also the State, which naturally translated (along with their greater numbers) into a greater proportion of the abuse of power. I’m sure that where Lutherans were in majority populations, and the Church and State were still intimately united, there were plenty of abuses to go around. All this, however, supports the Lutheran contention that all men are fallible, be they ever so great.

I have to disagree with you. It wasn’t Rome who wanted to rule over the state it was the State who wanted to bolster their power by incorporating ecclesiastical power with political power. Thus we get the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ which in effect made defying the monarchy not only a criminal offense but since kings ruled by a right given by God any defiance of their rule was damnable also. It was a way that the nobility used to keep the masses in their place. Thus we get the French kings imprisoning the Popes at Avignon. We get Ferdinand in Spain using the inquisition to strengthen his reign and his treasury. We get Henry VIII in England trying to force the pope to grant an annulment to his marriage. We also see the German nobility using Luther to carve out a greater portion of power. And this is not something new to Western Europe. We see the same exact thing with the Roman Emperors in Constantinople lording over the Patriarch there. Separation of Church and State in Europe was to protect the church from the state not vice versa. Only in America it was to protect the state from the Church of England. Indeed the first settlers here came here to escape the Church of Henry VIII. Here I am speaking of the Pilgrims, the Quakers, the Puritans and the Catholics in Maryland.

 

[inkaneer]

As for the councils in the west, and particularly the long awaited Council of Trent which Luther did not live to see, keep in mind that since the 1400’s (well before the Reformation) Popes contended that councils could only ratify or support the positions of the Papacy… meaning that councils were not really free, like they were in the ecumenical period before the Great Schism. Trent was a great example of this. Looking at the few papal legates who actually wrote the positions of Trent, and the severe penalties threatened to any attending bishop who dissented from the papal positions (Trent having been convoked in Italian lands, where the sword could be used to ensure dissenters were either converted or eliminated… as was the case with Huss a hundred years or so prior) and one can see why Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and so forth were not present. No council is free, when the attendees in dissent must leave their heads at the door.

Again I have to disagree with you. It is not, as you state, “…that since the 1400’s (well before the Reformation) Popes contended that councils could only ratify or support the positions of the Papacy… meaning that councils were not really free, like they were in the ecumenical period before the Great Schism.” Rather the work of a council must have the unity of Pope for it to be considered infallible. You will recall that the power to bind and loose was given twice in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. The first time it was given to Peter singularly and the second time it was given to all the apostles collectively. So while one of more bishops may disagree as long as the majority of the bishops, in union with the pope agree then that portion of a council is recognized as a general council and its respective decrees infallible. I think what you are referring to is the conciliar theory that proclaimed the superiority of the council over the pope that arose from the Council of Constance. This council was called to deal with the so called “Western Schism” in which there were three men claiming to be pope and there was an attempt to usurp papal authority via use of a regularly occurring council. This was novel and rejected. So again you twist history. It was not the popes who made a new contention it was other forces who sought a change to papal aithority. Without going into a lengthy narrative suffice it to say that the decrees of the Council of Constance were not all approved by the pope and thus were not binding.

As for use of the sword against dissenters you mention only Hus. But the history of councils and their dealings with heretics indicates the direct opposite. They were given assurances of safety and were permitted to express their views. In the case of Huss He also was given an assurrance of a safe-conduct from the Emperor himself. But the safe conduct pass contained provisions that Hus was to follow. The safe conduct was upheld until Hus violated the provisions. After that He was arrested, tried and convicted and executed. In addition, Hus knew the safe-conduct was only a guarantee against illegal violence and could not protect him from the sentence of his legitimate judges. Hus was so confident [we would say over confident] of his position that he did not try to negotiate more beneficial terms to the safe conduct pass.

But this is something behind us. Our day is no longer enmeshed in the ugliness of the 16th century. No one was killed after Vatican II, whether they agreed or disagreed. We should be able to move forward, and walk together better than our Reformation era counterparts did.
Peace to you.

Good and we won’t bring up the scores of murders of Catholic priests, monks and religious at the hands of sola scripturists in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eigthteenth centuries and also today in certain sections of the world and even this country.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
… as one now Lutheran…**

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!

1. I think the title of this thread is misleading and unfortunate. Upon reading the opening post, clearly there’s a very different issue.
2. Some Lutheran Fathers were of the view that the PAPACY is AN anti-Christ. At times, even that a specific Pope was such. That even got into the Lutheran Confessions - a point very, very rarely affirmed by Lutherans today.
3. My Lutheran pastor expressed the “logic” as follows: An anti-christ is, by definition, one who denies that Jesus is THE Savior (emphasis on the EXCLUSIVE nature of His office - there is ONE and NO OTHER). Many understood the Pope to be suggesting that salvation actually depends on us and on our works. When I was a Catholic, I heard “Christ made salvation possible, but it is our lives of love that save us.” (or words to that effect). Now, to be fair, my Catholic teachers didn’t agree with that - but let’s move on. Now, IF the savior is me (even is PARTLY me) then Jesus is not THE Savior.
4. IMHO, some have overstepped what the Bible says about the anti-christs (which is VERY little). Protestants do not declares themselves to be infallible or unaccountable, but teachable, correctable, embracing accountability. And I think most have recognized this overstepping. There was TERRIBLE polemics in those days - on all sides - and IMHO, things got said - even in some official ways - that should not have been said. And in calmer days, such became clear, on all sides.
5. I think there was much misunderstanding on the point of justification in that 16th century debate. In my pure layman’s opinion, much of it was a matter of defintions and emphasis - as our joint Lutheran/Catholic declaration of justification seems to suggest. I don’t think that’s ALL of it, but I think that’s much of it. People tend to talk better than they listed - in spite of God giving us two ears but only one mouth. No one is guiltless in this matter.
6. For the record, I do not regard the papacy or any pope as an anti-christ. I am shocked and highly offended by some of the Popes (ones that lived shortly before Luther and Calvin - the ones they were obviously thinking about). But one of the benefits of the Reformation is that The Catholic Church began to take MUCH greater concern to whom it elected to that office. For centuries now, they have been very pious, moral and good men worthly of esteem. I disagree with them in the exact same matters and to the exact same degree as they disagree with me - but IMHO, this does not keep us from being FULL, UNseparated brothers in Christ. I realize it’s not mutual.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[rinnie]

I think this post got really ugly. I do not believe that MOST protestants ever view the Pope as the devil. I know many that Love and respect him, and while they do not follow every part of the Church they do listen and agree with his teaching.

To be honest I don’t really see any of his teaching that they really deny. Authority to teach was always the big thing I have seen.

But it amazes me how people him condemn the earlier Popes. It kind of reminds me of the saying in the bible. Its not what goes into your mouth they will send you to hell, its what comes out of your mouth.

It amazes me how they can sit here and condemn the Leader of the Church. I do not see where they every got this authority to judge and on what merit?

No one has ever denied as Christians of any faith we have all made mistakes, and all are human. But to come out and say this Man, Leader of the CC is the devil! That takes alot. And I would not want to take that to my grave. And the people that say that will be held responsible with those words and will take it to their death and answer to God for it. Do not think you will not. And remember you cannot say well I read this or that, You are saying that the leader of the RCC is the Devil. And you will answer for it.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

.

**
… as one now Lutheran…**

1. I think the title of this thread is misleading and unfortunate. Upon reading the opening post, clearly there’s a very different issue.
2. Some [SIGN]Lutheran Fathers were of the view that the PAPACY is AN anti-Christ[/SIGN]. At times, even that a specific Pope was such. That even got into the Lutheran Confessions - a point very, very rarely affirmed by Lutherans today.
3. My Lutheran pastor expressed the “logic” as follows: An anti-christ is, by definition, one who denies that Jesus is THE Savior (emphasis on the EXCLUSIVE nature of His office - there is ONE and NO OTHER). Many understood the Pope to be suggesting that salvation actually depends on us and on our works. When I was a Catholic, I heard “Christ made salvation possible, but it is our lives of love that save us.” (or words to that effect). Now, to be fair, my Catholic teachers didn’t agree with that - but let’s move on. Now, IF the savior is me (even is PARTLY me) then Jesus is not THE Savior.
4. IMHO, some have overstepped what the Bible says about the anti-christs (which is VERY little). Protestants do not declares themselves to be infallible or unaccountable, but teachable, correctable, embracing accountability. And I think most have recognized this overstepping. There was TERRIBLE polemics in those days - on all sides - and IMHO, things got said - even in some official ways - that should not have been said. And in calmer days, such became clear, on all sides.
5. I think there was much misunderstanding on the point of justification in that 16th century debate. In my pure layman’s opinion, much of it was a matter of defintions and emphasis - as our joint Lutheran/Catholic declaration of justification seems to suggest. I don’t think that’s ALL of it, but I think that’s much of it. People tend to talk better than they listed - in spite of God giving us two ears but only one mouth. No one is guiltless in this matter.
6. For the record, I do not regard the papacy or any pope as an anti-christ. I am shocked and highly offended by some of the Popes (ones that lived shortly before Luther and Calvin - the ones they were obviously thinking about). But one of the benefits of the Reformation is that The Catholic Church began to take MUCH greater concern to whom it elected to that office. For centuries now, they have been very pious, moral and good men worthly of esteem. I disagree with them in the exact same matters and to the exact same degree as they disagree with me - but IMHO, this does not keep us from being FULL, UNseparated brothers in Christ. I realize it’s not mutual.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Thank-you for your post Josiah, And while they had their view it is sad that they made a judgement like that, and they will be made accountable for it. Not only for what they said but for teaching others that. ANd how many people have turned against the RCC for their view. Thats alot to answer to when they meet God in my opinion.

I know that all Popes like us have sin, and like us will answer to God also. But I also believe that God said the devil would never take over his Church. I will stick with Gods view not others. God said it will never happen. God said the CHurch is led by the Holy Spirit. So when the Pope taught me it was with the Power of the Holy Spirt. I will go with those words to my grave. And proudly stand up in front of God with my Popes and say that. That I trusted your words my dear Lord, and stuck with your Church, no matter who tried to tear it down. Those words I will send the advocate to lead you to all truth that came to the CC at Pentocost will be the words on my lips until the day I die. I trusted you Lord to follow the leader of the sheep. That is the Roman Pope.

 

[crazzeto]

Martin Luther for sure was under the impression that he was both infallible and inspired, I’m reading a book called “Luthers own Statements” right now, which pulls together several statements he’s written over his life. It’s really eye opening to read one of the so called “fathers” of protistantism. This guy was probably bi-polar, and certainly a hypocryte.

For instance on Dec 11, 1518 he writes to his friend Wenceslaus Link:

“I will send you my playful remarks (nugas), so that you may see, whether I am right in guessing, that the true Antichrist, according to Paul, reighns in the Roman Court: I think I am able to prove that he (the Pope) is now worse than the Turks”.

Now fast forward to March 3, 1519 to see how Martin Luther, directly addresses this “Antichrist” of his.

“Now, most Holy Father, before God and every creature of His, I declare that I have not intended, and that to-day also I do not intend in any way to touch, or by any artifice (versutia) to destroy the power of the Roman Church and of your Holiness”.

A rather peculuar way to address someone that you beleive is the Antichrist no?

The in his book “Against the Popery of Rome, instituted by the Devil”, after asserting that he will “try to comb the long, uncombed ears of the great coarse donkey” he writes “The Pope’s Christ is the mother of the Devil”. It goes on with more childish name calling.

In other documents he would declare his own authroity and infallibility with such statements as

“I am certain that I have my teaching from heaven”
“My doctrines will stand, and the Pope will fall, notwithstanding all the gates of hell, and all the powers of the air, the land and sea”.

And this one is a real gem
“I will for ever stick to such pionts as I have taught, and AI will say, ‘Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or dondemns me for it, he condemns God, and most be a child of Hell’”

or how about

“I herewith let you know that in future, I will no longer do you the honour of allowing you, or even an Angel from Heaven, to judge my doctrine”

Funny how this protistant father keeps going on about doctrine, it’s like he believes that he, and not the bible is the final authority in faith and morals…

Anyway, there’s a lot more in this book. In his final days Luther would lament “what people are doing to his Gosples”, stating if he knew what “the bible alone would lead to” he might never have preached at all.

Source:
books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=martin+luthers+own+statements&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[rinnie]

I agree with you crazzeto, something happened to him. He claimed that he was hearing voices, etc. I personally believe that it is what we consider a nervous breakdown in our day.

But in Luthers defense I have read that he did try to take back alot of what he did. Repent in his own way. And I am sure God had mercy on him for it. And all we can do is also pray for him that he has found Peace in Christ which we all hope to find someday.

 

[crazzeto]

I agree with you crazzeto, something happened to him. He claimed that he was hearing voices, etc. I personally believe that it is what we consider a nervous breakdown in our day.

But in Luthers defense I have read that he did try to take back alot of what he did. Repent in his own way. And I am sure God had mercy on him for it. And all we can do is also pray for him that he has found Peace in Christ which we all hope to find someday.

I have heard he tried repenting as well, though to date I have not been able to verify some of the statements I have heard he made. Unfortunetly I’m not personally learned in German, so even if I could gain access to his full original works they’d be pretty usless to me.

It would be terrific if such a compiliation could be made available, accuratly translated into english.

 

[rich0220]

The protestants don’t believe that the pope is the anti-christ.

 

[inkaneer]

Today we are witnessing the modern form of fundamental evangelical protestantism making the false accusations of the pope being the Anti christ and the Catholic Church being the ‘whore of Babylon’. But these modern guys did not not make this stuff up by themselves. They are merely recycling old false allegations made by their mainline protestant forefathers in centuries past. To their credit in modern mainline protestant denominations the flow of false allegations have seemed to have been abated. But this is how the mainline protestant movement got jump started and the fundamentalists prove it all over. Someone from the camp of Jimmy Swaggert once said that whenever Jimmy would launch into one of his anti "Cath-O-LICK " [He would always emphasize the second and third syllables] preachings, the money donations would flow in in far greater amounts than ever. It got to be a practice of his that whenever money was needed Jimmy would launch one of his anti Catholic venom spewing sermons. This is the very same Jimmy Swaggert who, on his TV program, was teaching on the proofs of God’s existence and I watched him list all ten proofs from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and passed them of as his own without ever giving proper credit to his Catholic source. I realized then he was a hypocrit. It was at that moment that Jimmy Swaggert lost all credibility with me and actually started me on the road to being a better Catholic. But I digress so back to the topic.

Jesus promised His church that it would prevail over the forces of hell but that does not mean that hell will not try to prevail. Jesus had Judas. Jesus’ hand picked chief steward denied Him three times. His followers deserted Him. Was it going to be any better for the church? From the day of Pentecost onward hell has tried to prevail against the church and has failed. From without in the form of persecution and martyrdom or from within in the form of heresy the church has been under constant attack. And the heirarchy has not been spared in this attack. Just about all of the heresies were started by clergy. Arius was a priest. Nestorius was a bishop. Luther was a monk/priest. We have had popes who have been dispicable characters in their personal lives who have committed every type of sin. We have had popes who were very holy men also. But we have to remember that Jesus never promised that members of the church, no matter what their position, would be sinless. Jesus knew that they would. Jesus promise to His church was that it would be infallibe. Infallible does not mean impeccable. The promise of infallibility means that the church itself would not teach error even though some of its members, such as Nestorius and other like him, would indeed do so. The binding and loosening power coupled with the promise to the Church of guidance by the Holy Spirit into all truth meant that the church would teach truth, not error. Because if the Church ever did teach error then hell prevails and Jesus said that will never happen. So the claim of the Pope being an antichrist is completely bogus. It is unscriptural and a lie. So that is why Catholics can believe in formally defined dogma such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven because we know and believe something that protestants do not. That Jesus established a church with power over sin and power over the forces of hell and that church when binding formal doctrine, is guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth just as Jesus said. As for who the anti Christs are, pick any anti Catholic protestant leader. Because you can’t be anti Catholic without being anti Christ.

 

[rinnie]

The protestants don’t believe that the pope is the anti-christ.

God bless you rich.

 

[rinnie]

I have heard he tried repenting as well, though to date I have not been able to verify some of the statements I have heard he made. Unfortunetly I’m not personally learned in German, so even if I could gain access to his full original works they’d be pretty usless to me.

It would be terrific if such a compiliation could be made available, accuratly translated into english.

Not to de-rail, so I will be brief. The thing that amazed me more than anything is he was praying to the Blessed Mother on his death bed. Now thats awesome I must say.

And being that he was like the biggest reason for the refor. it always amazes me how many people follow many of his teachings. but reject that one so bad.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

1. Some Lutheran Fathers were of the view that the PAPACY is AN anti-Christ At times, even that a specific Pope was such. That even got into the Lutheran Confessions - a point very, very rarely affirmed by Lutherans today.
2. My Lutheran pastor expressed the “logic” as follows: An anti-christ is, by definition, one who denies that Jesus is THE Savior (emphasis on the EXCLUSIVE nature of His office - there is ONE and NO OTHER). Many understood the Pope to be suggesting that salvation actually depends on us and on our works. When I was a Catholic, I heard “Christ made salvation possible, but it is our lives of love that save us.” (or words to that effect). Now, to be fair, my Catholic teachers didn’t agree with that - but let’s move on. Now, IF the savior is me (even is PARTLY me) then Jesus is not THE Savior.
3. IMHO, some have overstepped what the Bible says about the anti-christs (which is VERY little). Protestants do not declares themselves to be infallible or unaccountable, but teachable, correctable, embracing accountability. And I think most have recognized this overstepping. There was TERRIBLE polemics in those days - on all sides - and IMHO, things got said - even in some official ways - that should not have been said. And in calmer days, such became clear, on all sides.
4. I think there was much misunderstanding on the point of justification in that 16th century debate. In my pure layman’s opinion, much of it was a matter of defintions and emphasis - as our joint Lutheran/Catholic declaration of justification seems to suggest. I don’t think that’s ALL of it, but I think that’s much of it. People tend to talk better than they listed - in spite of God giving us two ears but only one mouth. No one is guiltless in this matter.
5. For the record, I do not regard the papacy or any pope as an anti-christ. I am shocked and highly offended by some of the Popes (ones that lived shortly before Luther and Calvin - the ones they were obviously thinking about). But one of the benefits of the Reformation is that The Catholic Church began to take MUCH greater concern to whom it elected to that office. For centuries now, they have been very pious, moral and good men worthly of esteem. I disagree with them in the exact same matters and to the exact same degree as they disagree with me - but IMHO, this does not keep us from being FULL, UNseparated brothers in Christ. I realize it’s not mutual.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Thank-you for your post Josiah, But I also believe that God said the devil would never take over his Church.

Off topic, but I don’t see this as a promise to The Catholic Church (singularly, specificly, exclusively), I see it as a promise to the church. We disagree on that point. But, of course, that has nothing to do with whether the papacy is an anti-Christ.

God said the CHurch is led by the Holy Spirit. So when the Pope taught me it was with the Power of the Holy Spirt. I will go with those words to my grave.

… an act of faith that is certainly one you may make.

IMHO, the Holy Spirit leads the church, He never promised to lead The Catholic Church or Pope Benedict (nice as he is). And while God’s leading is always inerrant, I disagree that therefore all following is infallible. God ALWAYS leads inerrantly, but we know from Scripture (you didn’t get past the first 3 chapters for this point to be crystal clear) that has nothing whatsoever to do with an infallible following.

But again, we are entirely off topic.

.

 

[inkaneer]

Thank-you for your post Josiah, But I also believe that God said the devil would never take over his Church.

Originally Posted by AmericanJosiah:

Off topic, but I don’t see this as a promise to The Catholic Church (singularly, specificly, exclusively), I see it as a promise to the church. We disagree on that point. But, of course, that has nothing to do with whether the papacy is an anti-Christ.

REPLY: But the Catholic Church is “the church”. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only church for the first 1500 years of christianity was the Catholic Church. This protestant self efficating idea that the term “the church” somehow applies to them also is wishful thinking at best and quite hypocritical.

Quote:
“God said the CHurch is led by the Holy Spirit. So when the Pope taught me it was with the Power of the Holy Spirt. I will go with those words to my grave.”

Originally Posted by AmericanJosiah:… an act of faith that is certainly one you may make. IMHO, the Holy Spirit leads the church, He never promised to lead The Catholic Church or Pope Benedict (nice as he is). And while God’s leading is always inerrant, I disagree that therefore all following is infallible. God ALWAYS leads inerrantly, but we know from Scripture (you didn’t get past the first 3 chapters for this point to be crystal clear) that has nothing whatsoever to do with an infallible following.

REPLY: The promise of the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth was made to only eleven men. Jesus certainly had more disciples than the eleven Apostles present when this promise was given. But the other disciples did not receive this promise. The protestant claim of “being led by the spirit” in their interpretation of scripture is false. The only truth in protestantism are those doctrines that they retain from Catholicism. Just the sheer number of protestant denominations all claiming to have the truth but disagreeing on just what that truth is should be a clue to anyone that something was not right with protestantism. The Spirit leading into all truth is the reason why Jesus can empower Peter with the authority to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven. Think about it. As powerful as any secular government on this earth is not a single one of them can bind or loose in heaven. But Peter and his successors can. And there is no worry that these men will run off willy nilly binding and loosening as they pleased. How could they when the Holy Spirit was on the job protecting them from error?

 

[Roy5]

A couple of thoughts

 I haven't read and/or digested all the postings on this subject, so some of this may be repetition.

 1. The question is incorrectly stated. Few Protestants consider the Pope the anti-Christ, and many fewer today than a century ago. My paternal grandmother, for example, who came from an ex-Catholic family, probably believed that. As I recall, she may have even thought that the Pope had the numbers 666 under his vestments! But that was in earlier times, well before Vatican II and the thawing of relations between Catholicism and Protestantism. A few fundamentalists may still view the Pope as the anti-Christ - that's it.

 2. Most Protestants respect some Popes and may not admire others. For example, Pius IX helped alienate Protestants. He was the one who issued the 'The Syllabus of Errors' that sharply condemned all non-Catholic religions in the most dogmatic language, who rejected democracy, who assailed the separation of church and state, etc. I find among Protestants I know a deep appreciation for John XXIII and Paul VI. There is some suspicion of John Paul II and Benedict XVI because they seem to have been tougher when it comes to dissent within the church. JPII, for example - as I recall - silenced - hm - the name slips my mind - one of the most creative theologians of the church. Hans Kung, was it? BXVI has said things demeaning of Protestant clergy and their churches - e. g., that Protestant clergy do not administer a valid communion and their churches are not really churches but 'ecclesial communities'. I'm sure he believes that - understandably so -but why insult fellow Christians by saying it? 

 3. Historians disagree on whether the Catholic Church goes back to Jesus. There seems to be plenty of evidence that early Christians soon were divided into different camps, as various books not included in the Biblical canon indicate. It seems that everybody agrees only on the fact that by the medieval period the Roman Pontiff was the generally-acknowledged head of the Christian church in western Europe. Did he ever head the church in the East? Not likely, though he claimed to. Many Protestants, of course, believed that the church lost its way during the Middle Ages and became so corrupt on a variety of levels that it no longer reflected the central message of Christ but detoured into power politics, deviant doctrines, many superstitions, and various other byways that contradicted with scripture.   

  Having said all this, God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and everybody else, and may they follow the commandment of Christ and love one another, as Christ loved us.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

A couple of thoughts

 I haven't read and/or digested all the postings on this subject, so some of this may be repetition.

 1. The question is incorrectly stated. Few Protestants consider the Pope the anti-Christ, and many fewer today than a century ago. My paternal grandmother, for example, who came from an ex-Catholic family, probably believed that. As I recall, she may have even thought that the Pope had the numbers 666 under his vestments! But that was in earlier times, well before Vatican II and the thawing of relations between Catholicism and Protestantism. A few fundamentalists may still view the Pope as the anti-Christ - that's it.

 2. Most Protestants respect some Popes and may not admire others. For example, Pius IX helped alienate Protestants. He was the one who issued the 'The Syllabus of Errors' that sharply condemned all non-Catholic religions in the most dogmatic language, who rejected democracy, who assailed the separation of church and state, etc. I find among Protestants I know a deep appreciation for John XXIII and Paul VI. There is some suspicion of John Paul II and Benedict XVI because they seem to have been tougher when it comes to dissent within the church. JPII, for example - as I recall - silenced - hm - the name slips my mind - one of the most creative theologians of the church. Hans Kung, was it? BXVI has said things demeaning of Protestant clergy and their churches - e. g., that Protestant clergy do not administer a valid communion and their churches are not really churches but 'ecclesial communities'. I'm sure he believes that - understandably so -but why insult fellow Christians by saying it? 

 3. Historians disagree on whether the Catholic Church goes back to Jesus. There seems to be plenty of evidence that early Christians soon were divided into different camps, as various books not included in the Biblical canon indicate. It seems that everybody agrees only on the fact that by the medieval period the Roman Pontiff was the generally-acknowledged head of the Christian church in western Europe. Did he ever head the church in the East? Not likely, though he claimed to. Many Protestants, of course, believed that the church lost its way during the Middle Ages and became so corrupt on a variety of levels that it no longer reflected the central message of Christ but detoured into power politics, deviant doctrines, many superstitions, and various other byways that contradicted with scripture.   

  [SIGN]Having said all this, God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and everybody else, and may they follow the commandment of Christ and love one another, as Christ loved us./[/SIGN]QUOTE]

I agree with this with my whole heart and soul and mind. God Bless you also for saying it.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

From the Westminster confession of faith.
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, **that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. **

Antichrist Exalts himself from Scripture (2 Thess. 2:4).
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.

From canonical encyclopedia by Lucius Ferraris “Papa,” art. 2, in his** Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica**, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. (“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin.

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."

#13. “Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown,** as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.”**

#18. “As to papal authority, the** Pope is as it were God on earth**, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.”

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."

 

[kepha1]

On another post I wrote:
“I have a theory about anti-Catholic hate propaganda. The dynamic is the same as pornography. When reading it, the heart rate goes up, and the brain chemistry (dopamine, epinephrines) is altered. It drives the reader to find more stimulating hate to get the same “fix”. Black and red colors, even the sound of drum beats add to the mood on anti-Catholic web sites. It’s addictive. It diminishes ones ability to reason. It’s Satanic.”

From the Westminster confession of faith.
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

The Westminster confession of faith is a man made extra biblical document invented by the Church of England in 1646, a bit late considering the history of Christianity. If it was true to “sola scriptura” there would be no need for such a confession.

From canonical encyclopedia by Lucius Ferraris “Papa,” art. 2, in his** Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica**, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. (“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin.

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."

#13. “Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown,** as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.”**

#18. “As to papal authority, the** Pope is as it were God on earth**, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.”

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."

There are only two hate cults on the internet that propagate this lie. The "Remnant-of- goons.con, and the Seventh Day Adventists. Both are so maliciously anti-Catholic, they have compromised their ability to reason. That is partly why anti-Catholic trash of this nature is Satanic.

Pat Madrid has dealt with this issue in far greater detail than I can post here, but here is the site, followed by a few snippets:
More Vicarius ThrillsThe numbers of the “beast” and the men who flub them.

1. Next, both Mr. Drisko and Mr. Scheifler cite Lucius Ferraris’ Prompta Bibliotheca as further evidence that Vicarius Filii Dei is an official title of the pope. But here again, both men seem to be lost in a maze of historical details they don’t understand. The section of Prompta Bibliotheca Mr. Scheifler refers to is also a quote from the Donation of Constantine forgery. Naturally, Fr. Ferraris, a Franciscan ecclesiastical historian, could have been considerably more careful in his use of sources, given the fact that for fully 300 years before he compiled the Prompta Bibliotheca, it was widely known that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. But again, his injudicious inclusion of the forgery hardly constitutes evidence of Vicarius Filii Dei being used as an official title of the pope. In fact, regarding Ferraris’ scholarship, the Catholic Encyclopedia passage Scheifler and Drisko quote incompletely reads in full, “This supplement serves to keep up to date the work of Ferraris, which will ever remain a precious mine of information, although it is sometimes possible to reproach the author with laxism.” His use of the Donation of Constantine is certainly one such instance. Not surprisingly, Mr. Scheifler and Mr. Drisko both failed to include the italicized portion of this Encyclopedia quote. Why? Because it undercuts their argument, and they apparently don’t wish the unsuspecting reader to know that.

So, if the very best our Adventist friends can do is point to an obscure passage from a newspaper printed nearly a century ago, this demonstrates further the fact that Vicarius Filii Dei is not an official title of the pope. If it were, why would Adventists have to go through such gyrations to find an example of it? If it were an official papal title, examples would be strewn everywhere (as are occurrences of Vicarius Christi, Servus Servorum Dei, etc.). In spite of his strenuous efforts at historical sleuthing, the “evidence” Mr. Drisko presents is hardly the smoking gun he imagines it to be.

myfavoritmartin, that Satanic anti-Catholic hate you are mainlining is a form of spiritual pornography, and it is addictive. You are treading on very thin ice and I am very concerned for your spiritual and mental health.

 

[Roy5]

It depends upom the definition, doesn’t it?

 Those few Protestants who believe the Pope is the anti-Christ are off the wall. Most Protestants I know disagree strongly with the Church on various doctrines but respect much of the work it does in such areas as health care and feeding the poor.

  What is often overlooked, especially on CAF, is the amount of hostility and/or condescension some Catholics exhibit toward Protestantism. Some Catholics seem fixated on assailing Protestantism. I receive the *Our Sunday Visitor *and I watch EWTN and so much of the material presented in both is aimed at targeting Protestantism - the pre-Vatican mentality, it would seem. It's as though hey have totally ignored the new ecumenism that arose since Vatican II. Before that (I am a senior) I recall how Catholics couldn't even enter a Protestant church without it being such a terrible sin, Catholic priests boycotted local clergy groups, etc. Now, in this community the Catholic clergy are very active with Protestant clergy in the local association and Catholic women take leadership roles in Church Women United. Catholics and Protestants both unite for an annual service during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Catholic-Protestant marriages are commonplace, often with clergy of borh churches participating. And we could go on and on. 

   Even the question asked here reflects a antiquated view. "The Protestants" don't think of the Pope as the anti-Christ - very, very few do, certainly. It is misleading and inimical to the truth and to interfaith understanding to pose such a loaded question. I see as much prejudice, even more, emanating from Catholic sources such as the two mentioned as from Protestant sources. Let's celebrate a spirit of Christian reconciliation rather than continue to promote stupid and often misinformed prejudice. So, there are differences of opinion among us. Fine. We should be grateful to live in an age and in a couintry where that is permitted. It was the great medieval scholar St. Thomas Aquinas who argued that 'heretics' should be delivered to the civil authorities to be executed!.

    Fortunately, I also read Commonweal, America, US Catholic and other periodicals that do not reflect such Catholic bigotry. Sadly, *OSV* and EWTN do.

 

[kepha1]

It depends upom the definition, doesn’t it?

Those few Protestants who believe the Pope is the anti-Christ are off the wall. Most Protestants I know disagree strongly with the Church on various doctrines but respect much of the work it does in such areas as health care and feeding the poor.

What is often overlooked, especially on CAF, is the amount of hostility and/or condescension some Catholics exhibit toward Protestantism. Some Catholics seem fixated on assailing Protestantism. I receive the *Our Sunday Visitor *and I watch EWTN and so much of the material presented in both is aimed at targeting Protestantism - the pre-Vatican mentality, it would seem. It’s as though hey have totally ignored the new ecumenism that arose since Vatican II. Before that (I am a senior) I recall how Catholics couldn’t even enter a Protestant church without it being such a terrible sin, Catholic priests boycotted local clergy groups, etc. Now, in this community the Catholic clergy are very active with Protestant clergy in the local association and Catholic women take leadership roles in Church Women United. Catholics and Protestants both unite for an annual service during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Catholic-Protestant marriages are commonplace, often with clergy of borh churches participating. And we could go on and on.

Even the question asked here reflects a antiquated view. “The Protestants” don’t think of the Pope as the anti-Christ - very, very few do, certainly. It is misleading and inimical to the truth and to interfaith understanding to pose such a loaded question. I see as much prejudice, even more, emanating from Catholic sources such as the two mentioned as from Protestant sources. Let’s celebrate a spirit of Christian reconciliation rather than continue to promote stupid and often misinformed prejudice. So, there are differences of opinion among us. Fine. We should be grateful to live in an age and in a couintry where that is permitted. It was the great medieval scholar St. Thomas Aquinas who argued that ‘heretics’ should be delivered to the civil authorities to be executed!.

Fortunately, I also read Commonweal, America, US Catholic and other periodicals that do not reflect such Catholic bigotry. Sadly, OSV and EWTN do.

This web site lists 13 organizations devoted exclusively to countering the “errors of Catholicism” (often referred to as “Romanism” or “popery”) and “saving” Catholics.
22 Organizations with Anti-Catholic Material, and 5 Protestant churches with anti-Catholic material.

Anti-Catholicism on the Internet shows that Jesus-is-Lord, a virulent anti-Catholic web site, got over 1 million hits in a two year period, and that was 10 years ago.

Most Protestants I know disagree strongly with the Church on various doctrines but respect much of the work it does in such areas as health care and feeding the poor.

Anti-Catholics don’t care about the Church’s work in areas of health care and feeding the poor. They are blind. But I have a question for you. Can you tell a tree by it’s fruits?

(Edited)