FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sources on Antichrist
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I have been taking up a task I had the intention of for over five years of refuting the Protestant nonsense that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Does anyone have Patristic sources showing the Church's teaching on this? I have read St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, and St. John Henry Cardinal Newman.
(05-09-2021, 05:44 PM)Marmot Wrote: [ -> ]Have you read these?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5073.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm
Thanks! I will incorporate those into my refutation of this madness!
Godspeed!
(05-09-2021, 05:44 PM)Marmot Wrote: [ -> ]Have you read these?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5073.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm
Did you notice about what St. Hippolytus said about the 10 horns on the fourth beast? He says they are democracies that resemble kingdoms. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman also speculates that Antichrist religion may resemble...democracy.

???
(05-09-2021, 05:41 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]I have been taking up a task I had the intention of for over five years of refuting the Protestant nonsense that the Pope is the Antichrist.

There is no "Protestant nonsense". There are many Protestant nonsenses. Even the original Protestant leaders noted that there were ever increasing doctrines being promoted in the name of their movement.

Refuting it is difficult if only because of their emotional basis, rather than rational. Any rational examination reveals that Protestants have to be wrong. They have no roots, and they explicitly reject the one root they have, so either that root is wrong, and they are wrong for being derived from it, or that root is right, and they are wrong because they reject it.

Any honest Protestant that examines this in detail will come to that conclusion.

(Most of them will try to invent some sort of secret hidden early church that is distinct from the Church, and claim to be reviving that or being descendants of some secret group which preserved this secret truth for over a thousand years, or go full blown relativist and show themselves to not believe in God as we know at all. Arguing with this is very tricky. Most discussions end up defining all the words and outlying all the facts, before getting to the actual argument, and it often turns out their argument is emotional not rational.)

Instead of arguing against their claims, one might do better to force them to examine and explain their claims in more detail. The Protestant doctrines in this regard are best represented by cartoons, than scholarly discourse. Forcing them to examine their teachings usually show them to be poorly understood by the person making the claim.

Also, the word "Antichrist" is used for different things at various times, even in scripture. It is not a word with a common and solid meaning. Protestants likely have various understandings that are quite separate from any old source, and you'd have to address their personal understanding. Protestants are defined by their intensely personal and variable teachings.
(05-09-2021, 05:41 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]I have been taking up a task I had the intention of for over five years of refuting the Protestant nonsense that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Upon further reflection, I would ask the Protestants (in theory) what they mean by this.

Which Pope is The Antichrist? Are all Popes the Antichrist(s)? What happens when a Pope dies, does the Antichrist cease to exist? Why wouldn't the people electing the new Pope be the actual Antichrist? What purpose does it serve to have this supposed "Antichrist" adhere to the same core doctrines as their predecessors? The first Protestants to attack the Pope are quite different from modern ones, yet, the Catholic doctrine hasn't changed. Popes have had many failings, moral and personal, but many haven't, so the only thing they have in common is that they hold the office: is the Antichrist label applicable to them all equally? If so, why? What about anti-popes? Were Peter and Clement antichrists?

How can someone who doesn't deny that Jesus is Lord be an antichrist, and how can there be many antichrists throughout all time and have a singular one stand out?

Denial of Christ is a core feature of antichrists (hence, the term), and anybody who professes a basic doctrine that Jesus is Lord in reality is hardly an "Antichrist", unless one thinks the Antichrist label is somehow "genetic" and applies regardless of the person's beliefs and actions. Popes can be elected against their will as well.

The Popes haven't had the same political power that they had back when Protestants were first making these claims, and I suspect that claims about the Pope being the Antichrist (or antichrists) are holdovers from when they were seen as a political force to oppose in political struggles. Otherwise, it is just a bogeyman that cannot be nailed down and defined.
(05-12-2021, 01:44 PM)Insanis Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-09-2021, 05:41 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]I have been taking up a task I had the intention of for over five years of refuting the Protestant nonsense that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Upon further reflection, I would ask the Protestants (in theory) what they mean by this.

Which Pope is The Antichrist? Are all Popes the Antichrist(s)? What happens when a Pope dies, does the Antichrist cease to exist? Why wouldn't the people electing the new Pope be the actual Antichrist? What purpose does it serve to have this supposed "Antichrist" adhere to the same core doctrines as their predecessors? The first Protestants to attack the Pope are quite different from modern ones, yet, the Catholic doctrine hasn't changed. Popes have had many failings, moral and personal, but many haven't, so the only thing they have in common is that they hold the office: is the Antichrist label applicable to them all equally? If so, why? What about anti-popes? Were Peter and Clement antichrists?

How can someone who doesn't deny that Jesus is Lord be an antichrist, and how can there be many antichrists throughout all time and have a singular one stand out?

Denial of Christ is a core feature of antichrists (hence, the term), and anybody who professes a basic doctrine that Jesus is Lord in reality is hardly an "Antichrist", unless one thinks the Antichrist label is somehow "genetic" and applies regardless of the person's beliefs and actions. Popes can be elected against their will as well.

The Popes haven't had the same political power that they had back when Protestants were first making these claims, and I suspect that claims about the Pope being the Antichrist (or antichrists) are holdovers from when they were seen as a political force to oppose in political struggles. Otherwise, it is just a bogeyman that cannot be nailed down and defined.
Not to mention, Protestants maintaining this ignore the issue of zweikaiserproblem which shows that while there is usually argued by partisans that the Roman Empire had one Emperor, the fact is there were multiple claims to legitimacy made by the Franks, the Germans, the Greeks, the Russians, and the Ottomans. Given the succession of Roman Emperors was also obtained legitimately through violent disposals and assassinations of Emperors, ALL of these have legitimate claims to being the Roman Empire AND, the U.S. Constitution itself, as pointed out by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman is modeled eerily after the Roman Republic, the U.S. may indeed BE the Roman Empire of modern times!

Seeing as everything centers around the fall of Rome in historicist interpretation being in 476, if this is proven historically untenable or fraudulent, the whole of historicism collapses.
The trouble with refuting Protestant's beliefs with the works of the Saints is they are considered the poisonous fruit of a tree that, for the life of them, they cannot get rid of.

While we Catholics do not believe in 'The Bible Alone' (sola scripture; SS from this point), it would be more fruitful to start from a SS perspective, perhaps using some of the works of Catholic theologians, Saints and so on to help guide you in understanding the passages in relation to a Pope or Antichrist. Then work your way onwards if they are receptive. The sad reality is, even from a SS starting point, you may find yourself stonewalled with that famous line, "that verse has been taken out of context."

There is also a significant rift in interpretation of the Book of Revelation. The Protestant interpretations of it are as numerable as the stars in the sky in terms of it being the book of Doomsday; and how the Pope, or Biden, or the EU or some other person they don't like are representative of certain phases of the end times.
Scott Hahn's book, "The Lamb's Supper" paints that part of our Bible as symbolising the Catholic Mass. Worth a read, if only to enrichen one's understanding of the how's and why's of our Rite.
(05-14-2021, 08:10 PM)TheRock Wrote: [ -> ]The trouble with refuting Protestant's beliefs with the works of the Saints is they are considered the poisonous fruit of a tree that, for the life of them, they cannot get rid of.

While we Catholics do not believe in 'The Bible Alone' (sola scripture; SS from this point), it would be more fruitful to start from a SS perspective, perhaps using some of the works of Catholic theologians, Saints and so on to help guide you in understanding the passages in relation to a Pope or Antichrist. Then work your way onwards if they are receptive. The sad reality is, even from a SS starting point, you may find yourself stonewalled with that famous line, "that verse has been taken out of context."

There is also a significant rift in interpretation of the Book of Revelation. The Protestant interpretations of it are as numerable as the stars in the sky in terms of it being the book of Doomsday; and how the Pope, or Biden, or the EU or some other person they don't like are representative of certain phases of the end times.
Scott Hahn's book, "The Lamb's Supper" paints that part of our Bible as symbolising the Catholic Mass. Worth a read, if only to enrichen one's understanding of the how's and why's of our Rite.
There is a LOT of extra-Scriptural nonsensical exploits in the historicist position ironically.