anti-christ and the papacy

[Rhamiel]

which Reformers and denominations teach that the person and/or office of the Pope is the antichrist?

pretty simple thread lol

 

[Ashes of Eden]

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Many lay people these days don't quite accept the teaching, but it is still the official teaching, as found in the Book of Concord, which our pastors have to submit to totally and completely. I, for one, accept the teaching.

 

[concretecamper]

Many things can be anti Christ. For one, Martin Luther. Many Catholics get too caught up in ecumenical dialogue and obscure history regarding this heretic. I for one hold to the teachings of Trent with regards to this fellow.

 

[Rhamiel]

Many things can be anti Christ. For one, Martin Luther. Many Catholics get too caught up in ecumenical dialogue and obscure history regarding this heretic. I for one hold to the teachings of Trent with regards to this fellow.

this is not a thread about the good or bad things Martin Luther may have done
this thread is about the historical view of the Papacy as the anti-Christ, please stay on topic

 

[com7fy8]

I think I have heard a few born-again Bible people say they believe the Pope is the anti-Christ.

But I have not heard much talk about this, from denominational and evangelical people.

Pentecostals . . . I don't remember.

There also may be some Bible people who respect Pope Francis and think he is saved.

So, may be, even in a same group of people, not all have the same ideas.

I don't think ones controlling an organization's official statements can speak for all their members.

I don't think the present Roman Catholic thing is influential enough to take control of the whole world; they seem to be losing influence. And ones say the anti-Christ will take full control of the whole world . . . of sinners, this is. I don't see any Pope doing this, or even coming close.

 

[RC1970]

I believe that the Antichrist spoken of in the Bible was the office of Roman Emperor. This is due to the fact that the Roman Emperors were supposed to be worshiped as gods. The rulers of the day required Christians to declare "Caesar as Lord", but the Christians refused and would say instead that "Jesus is Lord". So, the Caesar's were being put "in the place of" (anti) Christ.

However, generically speaking, anyone who puts themselves in the place of Christ or sets themselves against Christ, could be considered Antichrist. I think some of the Popes may have come close to doing this.

 

[Rhamiel]

thank you for your posts

I am not really looking for a debate or stuff, I just want to find some historical POV on this issue

 

[Rick Otto]

which Reformers and denominations teach that the person and/or office of the Pope is the antichrist?

pretty simple thread lol

I figured it out all by myself, just reading the bible. I was in parochial high school.
But I knew the whole approach was backward from first grade catechism.

Not sure who teaches it.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think I have heard a few born-again Bible people say they believe the Pope is the anti-Christ.

But I have not heard much talk about this, from denominational and evangelical people.

Pentecostals . . . I don't remember.

There also may be some Bible people who respect Pope Francis and think he is saved.

So, may be, even in a same group of people, not all have the same ideas.

I don't think ones controlling an organization's official statements can speak for all their members.

I don't think the present Roman Catholic thing is influential enough to take control of the whole world; they seem to be losing influence. And ones say the anti-Christ will take full control of the whole world . . . of sinners, this is. I don't see any Pope doing this, or even coming close.

Control is more complete when it is unseen.

 

[~Anastasia~]

thank you for your posts

I am not really looking for a debate or stuff, I just want to find some historical POV on this issue

Not very historical, nor very accurate a sampling, but I moved through quite a number of evangelical denominations and non-denominationals before becoming Orthodox. I would say probably just over half of the ones I belonged to had that sentiment at the level of the preaching and general belief by the laity. Whether or not it was "official doctrine" I cannot say, as most of them did not have extensive documents concerning their doctrine, but only a short statement of faith. (And many were essentially a denomination unto themselves in the local assembly only.) I don't recall ever seeing it in the statement of faith of any denomination (though I can be forgetting).

I don't believe the papacy was intended to have the authority claimed for it as it is now, but I also don't see the pope as necessarily (or even likely to be) "the antichrist" ... though who knows who may fill that role if one sees it as a future event. (No insult intended here, I'm just saying that imo it ought to be an "I don't know" if one sees it as a future event.)

I don't remember who said so, but I think it was one of the earlier (pre-schism) popes of Rome who once said that any patriarch/pope who desired to have authority over the entire Church would in fact be an antichrist (I don't believe he said "the" antichrist) ... but I'm not sure who said that. Around the 7th century maybe? You may already know - might be a point of interest since you asked historically.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. It doesn't really concern me. From the Orthodox point of view, the pope of Rome was one of the leaders of the Church, of course, before the schism, and would rightly hold a place as one of the leaders, if not for the issues that led to the schism and those that developed since.

 

[fhansen]

The original Westminister Confession, very influential in Protestantism after the Reformation, stated that the pope was the antichrist.

 

[Rhamiel]

I don't remember who said so, but I think it was one of the earlier (pre-schism) popes of Rome who once said that any patriarch/pope who desired to have authority over the entire Church would in fact be an antichrist (I don't believe he said "the" antichrist) ... but I'm not sure who said that. Around the 7th century maybe? You may already know - might be a point of interest since you asked historically.

very interesting, I think you are referring to the controversy over the "universal bishop" one of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Patriarch John IV had the title of "Universal Bishop" and the Patriarch of Rome, Pope Gregory I saw the title and other statements made by John IV as being very problematic.
at the time, the term was being used to say that John IV was the only true Bishop, and all other Bishops were more like auxiliary Bishops, a clear insult to the collegiality of the Church

The original Westminister Confession, very influential in Protestantism after the Reformation, stated that the pope was the antichrist.

thank you, that is the kind of information I am looking for

 

[bbbbbbb]

You might find the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church helpful. It spells out in some detail its differences with the Roman Church, but does not label the Pope or his office as being the Anti-Christ.

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

 

[com7fy8]

I don't think the present Roman Catholic thing is influential enough to take control of the whole world; they seem to be losing influence. And ones say the anti-Christ will take full control of the whole world . . . of sinners, this is. I don't see any Pope doing this, or even coming close.

Control is more complete when it is unseen.

Well, in case you mean that unseen conspiring "is more complete" than seen control, that would still require outward control, somehow . . . like by controlling money someone controls people.

But what if certain people do not let themselves be controlled by the economy? Then they can't be controlled by a conspiracy to control the money

So, instead of being worried about how the Vatican might be taking over the world by controlling money, just help people not to be suckers for money and the things money can buy! Then there might be some circumstantial influence, but people in their hearts aren't controlled.

There are people who understand that the anti-Christ does not want only control through outward influence, but the anti-Christ wants people in their hearts to serve the anti-Christ, including by denying (in 1 John 4:1-4) "that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh". Controlling money, and any sort of unseen, secret conspiracy can not make people deny Jesus, in their hearts.

So, what do you mean by "unseen" control that is "complete"?

 

[~Anastasia~]

very interesting, I think you are referring to the controversy over the "universal bishop" one of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Patriarch John IV had the title of "Universal Bishop" and the Patriarch of Rome, Pope Gregory I saw the title and other statements made by John IV as being very problematic.
at the time, the term was being used to say that John IV was the only true Bishop, and all other Bishops were more like auxiliary Bishops, a clear insult to the collegiality of the Church

See, I figured you would already know about that. I do believe it was the statement by Pope Gregory I - but I hesitated to mention the name because I wasn't sure if I remembered correctly. In any case, I've only heard some comments in passing and don't know that much about the controversy.

Thank you for the info.

 

[Tangible]

From bookofconcord.com, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

[text] indicates differing verbiage between the German and Latin versions of the BoC.

39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2:3-4: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority.

40] Moreover, it is manifest, in the first place, that the Pope rules in the Church, and by the pretext of ecclesiastical authority and of the ministry has established for himself this kingdom. For he assigns as a pretext these words: I will give to thee the keys. Secondly, the doctrine of the Pope conflicts in many ways with the Gospel, and [thirdly] the Pope assumes to himself divine authority in a threefold manner. First, because he takes to himself the right to change the doctrine of Christ and services instituted by God, and wants his own doctrine and his own services to be observed as divine; secondly, because he takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also the jurisdiction over souls after this life; thirdly, because the Pope does not want to be judged by the Church or by any one, and puts his own authority ahead of the decision of Councils and the entire Church. But to be unwilling to be judged by the Church or by any one is to make oneself God. Lastly, these errors so horrible, and this impiety, he defends with the greatest cruelty, and puts to death those dissenting.

41] This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope. On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded, Matt. 7:15: Beware of false prophets. And Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and execrated as cursed, Gal. 1:8; Titus 3:10. And he says, 2 Cor. 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness?

42] To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty.

On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused; for the errors of the kingdom of the Pope are manifest. And Scripture with its entire voice exclaims that these errors are a teaching of demons and of Antichrist. 43] The idolatry in the profanation of the masses is manifest, which, besides other faults [besides being altogether useless] are shamelessly applied to most shameful gain [and trafficking]. 44] The doctrine of repentance has been utterly corrupted by the Pope and his adherents. For they teach that sins are remitted because of the worth of our works. Then they bid us doubt whether the remission takes place. They nowhere teach that sins are remitted freely for Christ's sake, and that by this faith we obtain remission of sins.

Thus they obscure the glory of Christ, and deprive consciences of firm consolation, and abolish true divine services, namely, the exercises of faith struggling with [unbelief and] despair [concerning the promise of the Gospel].

From bookofconcord.com, the Smalcald Articles

Part II, Article IV Of the Papacy

8] For since men would have to be subject to this head, not from God's command, but from their personal good pleasure, it would easily and in a short time be despised, and at last retain no member; neither would it have to be forever confined to Rome or any other place, but it might be wherever and in whatever church God would grant a man fit for the [taking upon him such a great] office. Oh, the complicated and confused state of affairs [perplexity] that would result!

9] Therefore the Church can never be better governed and preserved than if we all live under one head, Christ, and all the bishops equal in office (although they be unequal in gifts), be diligently joined in unity of doctrine, faith, Sacraments, prayer, and works of love, etc., as St. Jerome writes that the priests at Alexandria together and in common governed the churches, as did also the apostles, and afterwards all bishops throughout all Christendom, until the Pope raised his head above all.

10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. 11] This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2:4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians.

12] The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God s name. 13] This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven. 14] And when we distinguish the Pope's teaching from, or measure and hold it against, Holy Scripture, it is found [it appears plainly] that the Pope's teaching, where it is best, has been taken from the imperial and heathen law, and treats of political matters and decisions or rights, as the Decretals show; furthermore, it teaches of ceremonies concerning churches, garments, food, persons and [similar] puerile, theatrical and comical things without measure, but in all these things nothing at all of Christ, faith, and the commandments of God. Lastly, it is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges [and disseminates] his [papal] falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one's own works and [fictitious] divine worship (for this is the very Papacy [upon each of which the Papacy is altogether founded and is standing]), and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations [of the Pope] above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.

Part II, Article II Of the Mass

25] The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing, as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we are not in need of calling upon the saints].

 

[GoingByzantine]

There have been some "wicked" Popes, but I would not go so far as to call them Anti-Christs...all human beings are sinners, and all human beings can be saved by putting their faith in Jesus Christ.

Pope Benedict IX for instance is highly regarded as one of the "worst" popes in history, he is the only man know to have sold the papacy; on top of it, he was thought to have committed fornication and murder. So this has led many people to call him an Anti-Christ, but he was not. After he was kicked out of his office, he repented his sins and accepted Jesus Christ into his life...he was a Christian. He retired to a monastery where he worshiped the lord and begged the lord for forgiveness. We are all sinners, and we can all be saved.

 

[Albion]

There have been some "wicked" Popes, but I would not go so far as to call them Anti-Christs...all human beings are sinners, and all human beings can be saved by putting their faith in Jesus Christ.

Pope Benedict IX for instance is highly regarded as one of the "worst" popes in history, he is the only man know to have sold the papacy; on top of it, he was thought to have committed fornication and murder. So this has led many people to call him an Anti-Christ, but he was not. After he was kicked out of his office, he repented his sins and accepted Jesus Christ into his life...he was a Christian. He retired to a monastery where he worshiped the lord and begged the lord for forgiveness. We are all sinners, and we can all be saved.

Hi, GB. Being the anti-Christ is more than just being a bad leader or a sinner. The issue, as I understand it is that there is one who will undermine Christ's Church...and it's based upon Revelation which, as we all know, requires interpretation.

In the end, the world's largest Christian church COULD, in theory, be the agent and its leader the point man for that turn of events. Or it could be a totally misplaced theory.

Who is to say? And why is one guess so offensive to Catholics? I've never quite figured that out, considering what they say of non-Catholic churches.

 

[Rhamiel]

And why is one guess so offensive to Catholics?

it is not so much that we are offended
we are just worried about the immortal souls of people who speak falsely against a servant of the Lord

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

 

[Berean777]

...