Is the Catholic Papacy an Anti-Christ?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

This is a "split" off of another thread that was seriously side-tracked....


Is the RCC and/or it's Pope or the Catholic Papacy the or an anti-Christ?


Some of MY thoughts....


1. This is an HISTORIC position of some Protestant denominations. It is ONE of many common assertions of the Reformation five centuries ago.


2. It is MY humble, fallible, personal opinion that there are several statements that are best left to ancient history, and MUST understood in the light and milieu of the age in which they were produced. The Catholic Church's "Unam Sanctum" and these Protestant assertations are AMONG them. There are, sadly, lots of examples. I remember, many years ago, when I quoted Unam Sanctum to a Catholic friend. He became quite offended, insisted it was a lie and that NO Catholic believes that and the RCC NEVER believed such a "stupid thing" (his words, not mine). Dig up a lot of these things and I think the common response is not dissimilar.


3. I personally WISH each tradition would just apologize for them and drop them, but that doesn't seem to be how it goes. The more typical approach is to either "reinterpret" them (sometimes 180 degrees differently than what the words actually say) or simply to ignore such in hopes that it will be forgotten (fat chance) or (in a way I would somewhat support) by noting the historic milieu.


4. As I discussed this at length with my Lutheran pastor, he noted that the basis of this was that the BIBLE defines "anti-Christ" as a denial of Jesus as THE Christ, THE Savior. Luther, the Lutheran Church Fathers and generally 16th Century Protestants understood (correctly or not) that the RCC taught that OUR works play at least SOME role in our salvation. Thus, there IS a certain 'logic' in arguing that THEREFORE, for the RCC, Jesus is not THE Christ, THE Savior but rather PART Christ, PART Savior or maybe A Christ, A Savior. We'd also be a Christ, a Savior. Now, we could argue until Jesus comes back what the relative percentages are (99% Jesus, 1% me, whatever) but it's moot to the point. IF our works have ANY role, then we are at least partly the Christ, the Savior and therefore Christ is not - at least not fully. Now, maybe Luther (who had a doctorate in Catholic theology from a Catholic university) misunderstood and that was not the Catholic position, but in any case, that was the understanding and the basis for the assertion. Whether the RCC did or still does teach that OUR works are necessary for salvation is another issue for another day and thread. MY point here is: that was the Protestant understanding and perspective 500 years ago.


5. No one denies that the Popes of recent times have been man of GREAT faith, piety and morality. I GREATLY honor and respect and hold in high esteem those that have held that Office in my lifetime. But we need to remember that the situation was different for those Reformers. Read about the life of Pope Alexander VI - the one Luther grew up under - and you'll get the milieu of his day. ONE of the many, many blessings of the Reformation, IMHO, is that the RCC radically changed how and whom it choose as the Holy Father.


6. I PERSONALLY view this as, at least, unnecessary and counterproductive. As I have stated elsewhere, I do not affirm the papacy or the RCC as an anti-Christ. I just don't think that accomplishes anything and hurts much. We DO need to talk about Justification, however.


What are your thoughts?


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Secundulus]

.

This is a "split" off of another thread that was seriously side-tracked....


Is the RCC and/or it's Pope or the Catholic Papacy the or an anti-Christ?


Some of MY thoughts....


1. This is an HISTORIC position of some Protestant denominations. It is ONE of many common assertions of the Reformation five centuries ago.


2. It is MY humble, fallible, personal opinion that there are several statements that are best left to ancient history, and MUST understood in the light and milieu of the age in which they were produced. The Catholic Church's "Unam Sanctum" and these Protestant assertations are AMONG them. There are, sadly, lots of examples. I remember, many years ago, when I quoted Unam Sanctum to a Catholic friend. He became quite offended, insisted it was a lie and that NO Catholic believes that and the RCC NEVER believed such a "stupid thing" (his words, not mine). Dig up a lot of these things and I think the common response is not dissimilar.


3. I personally WISH each tradition would just apologize for them and drop them, but that doesn't seem to be how it goes. The more typical approach is to either "reinterpret" them (sometimes 180 degrees differently than what the words actually say) or simply to ignore such in hopes that it will be forgotten (fat chance) or (in a way I would somewhat support) by noting the historic milieu.


4. As I discussed this at length with my Lutheran pastor, he noted that the basis of this was that the BIBLE defines "anti-Christ" as a denial of Jesus as THE Christ, THE Savior. Luther, the Lutheran Church Fathers and generally 16th Century Protestants understood (correctly or not) that the RCC taught that OUR works play at least SOME role in our salvation. Thus, there IS a certain 'logic' in arguing that THEREFORE, for the RCC, Jesus is not THE Christ, THE Savior but rather PART Christ, PART Savior or maybe A Christ, A Savior. We'd also be a Christ, a Savior. Now, we could argue until Jesus comes back what the relative percentages are (99% Jesus, 1% me, whatever) but it's moot to the point. IF our works have ANY role, then we are at least partly the Christ, the Savior and therefore Christ is not - at least not fully. Now, maybe Luther (who had a doctorate in Catholic theology from a Catholic university) misunderstood and that was not the Catholic position, but in any case, that was the understanding and the basis for the assertion. Whether the RCC did or still does teach that OUR works are necessary for salvation is another issue for another day and thread. MY point here is: that was the Protestant understanding and perspective 500 years ago.


5. No one denies that the Popes of recent times have been man of GREAT faith, piety and morality. I GREATLY honor and respect and hold in high esteem those that have held that Office in my lifetime. But we need to remember that the situation was different for those Reformers. Read about the life of Pope Alexander VI - the one Luther grew up under - and you'll get the milieu of his day. ONE of the many, many blessings of the Reformation, IMHO, is that the RCC radically changed how and whom it choose as the Holy Father.


What are your thoughts?


Pax


- Josiah[/quote]Well, we agree on most everything here. There is always a first for everything.

History is history and should be studied, but also put into its historical context. If that were not true, then I would have to still be fighting the damn yankees.

However, it might be worth a discussion somewhere to talk about what does it mean, "saved by faith." I am personally convinced, after having studied both sides, that there really isn't a whole lot, if any, difference between the Catholics and Protestants today.

The language is a little different, but once you put aside the "historical doctrinal" glasses, I think we really believe the same thing.

Not that I think this should be any surprise. We all do have the same root.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well, we agree on most everything here. There is always a first for everything.

I am personally convinced, after having studied both sides, that there really isn't a whole lot, if any, difference between the Catholics and Protestants today.

... there's evidently also a second for everything; I largely agree if we are speaking of JUSTIFICATION. I'm not sure, because, IMHO, the Catholic position is difficult, "fuzzy" and difficult to determine. But, I do agree that, IMHO, we seem to be a lot closer on THAT than perhaps either realized 500 years ago. At least that's what MY discussions during those Catholic/Protestant days of mine suggested. But that's another topic for another day and thread; I'd LIKE to keep this on the historic assertion of the anti-Christ. Okay?





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is the Catholic Papacy an Anti-Christ?

First off, what is everyone's view of who/what the AC is in Revelation? Is he Roman, Greek, Jewish?
Whoever he is, the woes in Reve start to come

1 John 2:18 Little-children, last Hour it-is, and according-as ye hear that the anti-christ is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736). And now anti-christs, many, have become whence we are knowing that last Hour it-is. [ercetai <2064> (5736) Reve 1:7, 9:12, 11:14].

Reve 9:12 The woe the one departs, behold! is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736) still two woes after these

Reve 11:14 The woe the second departs behold! the woe the third is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736) swiftly.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

What if the Anti-Christ is radical Islam or some other ideology that's hostile to Christianity and Christians?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

First off, what is everyone's view of who/what the AC is in Revelation? Is he Roman, Greek, Jewish?
Whoever he is, the woes in Reve start to come

1 John 2:18 Little-children, last Hour it-is, and according-as ye hear that

the anti-christ is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736). And now anti-christs, many, have become whence we are knowing that last Hour it-is. [ercetai <2064> (5736) Reve 1:7, 9:12, 11:14].

Reve 9:12 The woe the one departs, behold! is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736) still two woes after these

Reve 11:14 The woe the second departs behold! the woe the third is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736) swiftly.

Confession: I know little of all that. It seems to ME that "anti-Christ" is a complex topic. It seems to ME that sometimes this seems to be something common in the first century and simply means a denial of Jesus as THE Christ/Savior (I think it is THIS concept that the Reformer's embraced here). But the concept is often seen in relation to a number of other things, often via Revelation and associated with The End Times, "THE Anti-Christ." I don't think the Reformers had that in mind in this assertion.



.

 

[Secundulus]

What if the Anti-Christ is radical Islam or some other ideology that's hostile to Christianity and Christians?

The winning post!!!!!!! Not to divert this thread to another conversation, but look at this link. Perhaps this is another topic for a new thread.

Its time to quit fighting each other and get back to fighting the real enemy.

 

[BreadAlone]

MOD HAT ​

Moved to Eschatology.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What if the Anti-Christ is radical Islam or some other ideology that's hostile to Christianity and Christians?

Muhammad and his religion were still many centuries away from when John wrote this, as was the Pope and Papacy......

1 John 2:18 Little-children, last Hour it-is, and according-as ye hear that the anti-christ is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736).
And now anti-christs, many, have become whence we are knowing that last Hour it-is. [ercetai <2064> (5736) Reve 1:7, 9:12, 11:14].

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

ddeleted by me

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

nm.......np

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What if the Anti-Christ is radical Islam or some other ideology that's hostile to Christianity and Christians?

Again, as I understand it, the Reformers were not using the term in any "LAST DAYS" "Left Behind" kind of way, but in the sense in which the Bible speaks of it in First John, and "many have come" and "deny Jesus as the Christ." In this sense, anti-Christ is not future or end times. Lutherans did not discuss this as Eschatology; I don't think Calvinists did, either (but I got to do a little research on that).




.

 

[BreadAlone]

Well, there are a variety of "marks" that define the Antichrist of Scripture. Many of these are clearly established by St. Paul in II Thessalonians, and there are also points reaffirmed by St. John in the Revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. There are 6 main Characteristics that we went through in my Revelation class:

1. We know that the Antichrist will have a connection to a great rebellion, or "falling away." Paul refers to the Antichrist as "the Man of Lawlessness. (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

2. The falling away and works/leadership of the Antichrist will be in association with the workings of Satan, and will be companied with all sorts of counterfeit signs and miracles which will decieve the Lost. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)

3. The Antichrist will exalt himself above everything that is called God or is worshiped, setting himself up in God's temple and proclaiming to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

4. The work of the Antichrist/power of lawlessness was already budding at the time of St. Paul. (2 Thessalonians 2:7)

5. The Antichrist wil only be destroyed by the splendor of Christ's Second Coming. (2 Thessalonians 2:8)

6. Those who follow the Antichrist will be given a powerful delusion so as to believe "the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

---------------------------------------------------

Now, my Synod, the WELS, believes the Office of the Papacy is the Antichrist. (Please note the disclaimer in my Signature.) They would claim that the above characteristics have been fulfilled by the Papacy; for example, the WELS would assert that the papacy has "led many away" by teaching that Christ did not complete our justification and that there is work we must do to be saved. They assert that the Papacy supposedly goes back to St. Peter himself, thus meaning that it was already beginning at Paul's time. They say that since the Papacy is in the Visible Church and sets himself as the sole authority of Christianity, proclaiming himself to be Christ's Substitute on earth and giving himself the authority to, when speaking ex cathedra, create new teaching that is equal to the Word of God.

I believe that making these assertions about the Papacy is a very big reach. The Papacy, in my opinion, is not the Antichrist. Historically, I can see why Martin Luther wrote in A Treatsie on the Power and Primacy of the Pope what he did, because the Pope at his time was corrupted by earthly pleasures. But in recent history the Papacy has made a large turn-around, and I do not believe that the Papacy has the same authority that it once did either to make it have the capability to be the Antichrist.

I would assert that the Antichrist is better seen in not an individual (as, note, it STARTED at the time of Paul and WILL CONTINUE to the Second Coming!!), but rather in the whole humanistic philosophy of the world that sets humanity up as its own God and does not see a need for God or his laws and gospel. This ideology has always been the most detrimental of ideologies against the Church. I do, however, beleive that there may be a "culmination" of these ideologies and philosophies at the end times, perhaps in one individual, especially in the times right before the End when Satan is released to decieve the nations one last time.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I deleted this post

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Now, my Synod, the WELS, believes the Office of the Papacy is the Antichrist. (Please note the disclaimer in my Signature.)

What made you put it in as a disclaimer? If you turn Orthodox you would not need it

**DISCLAIMER: I do NOT, in fact, believe that the Office of the Papacy is the Antichrist.
​

 

[Secundulus]

Again, as I understand it, the Reformers were not using the term in any "LAST DAYS" "Left Behind" kind of way, but in the sense in which the Bible speaks of it in First John, and "many have come" and "deny Jesus as the Christ." In this sense, anti-Christ is not future or end times. Lutherans did not discuss this as Eschatology; I don't think Calvinists did, either (but I got to do a little research on that).

This is what Calvin said. It appears escatalogical to me.

25. To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I wil1 briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2:3; Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51276593#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51276593#_ftnref1Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (IV, vii, 25). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As far as I know, the Orthodox have never implied the Pope or Papacy were the anti-christ or anti-christs mentioned in John's Epistles.
They did imply though that they were in an "unholy state" by calling the Orthodox faith "defective". I will have find out more on how they do view the anti-christ/s in the NT.

Orthodox Heritage
The Papacy and Its Unholy State: A Worldwide W a k e - u p C a l l to Orthodox Leaders

On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the "universal primacy" of his Roman Catholic church, approving a document released on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, proclaiming that Orthodox Churches are "defective." This was the Pontiff&#8217;s latest manner of insulting Jesus Christ and His True Church...............

 

[Secundulus]

As far as know, the Orthodox have never implied the Pope or Papacy were the anti-christ or anti-christs mentioned in John's Epistles.
They did imply though that they were in an "unholy state" by calling the Orthodox faith "defective". I will have find out more on how they do view the anti-christ/s in the NT.

Orthodox Heritage
The Papacy and Its Unholy State: A Worldwide W a k e - u p C a l l to Orthodox Leaders

On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the "universal primacy" of his Roman Catholic church, approving a document released on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, proclaiming that Orthodox Churches are "defective." This was the Pontiff&#8217;s latest manner of insulting Jesus Christ and His True Church...............

Actually, that article is a great exaggeration of what was actually said. However, it seems the spirit of John Calvin lives on in that author.

"Heap evils upon them, Lord, who are glorious on earth! Take the more humble and meek among them, who are in the enemy&#8217;s clutches, out of the Papacy and into the bosom of Orthodoxy, granting them and us your great mercy and eternal life."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually, that article is a great exaggeration of what was actually said. However, it seems the spirit of John Calvin lives on in that author.

"Heap evils upon them, Lord, who are glorious on earth! Take the more humble and meek among them, who are in the enemy&#8217;s clutches, out of the Papacy and into the bosom of Orthodoxy, granting them and us your great mercy and eternal life."

Well in some ways that would go with 2 Corin 6 and Reve 18 but I have a different view of this concerning the "Law and OC Judaism". Thoughts?

2 Corin 6:17 wherefore come-forth ye out of midst of them! and be being separated! is saying Lord

Revelation 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven saying "come forth! out of Her the People of Me that no ye may being together-partaking/sugkoinwnhshte <4790> (5661) to the Sins of Her and out of the stripes/blows of Her that no ye may be receiving". [Ephes 5:11/Phillip 4:14/2 Corin 6:16-18]

 

[Secundulus]

I would assert that the Antichrist is better seen in not an individual (as, note, it STARTED at the time of Paul and WILL CONTINUE to the Second Coming!!), but rather in the whole humanistic philosophy of the world that sets humanity up as its own God and does not see a need for God or his laws and gospel. This ideology has always been the most detrimental of ideologies against the Church. I do, however, beleive that there may be a "culmination" of these ideologies and philosophies at the end times, perhaps in one individual, especially in the times right before the End when Satan is released to decieve the nations one last time.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Your thoughts are extremely Catholic. Do you recognize them here in the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch?


The Church's ultimate trial
675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.