Blog Post

The Elephant in the Room Is Wearing a Tiara: Pope as Antichrist?

The Pope as Antichrist?

SIR ISAAC Newton was unquestionably one of the most brilliant minds England produced, but that did not make him a great biblical interpreter. He spends the bulk of his treatise on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation attempting to prove that the acquiring of temporal power by the bishop of Rome in the ninth century and following was indisputable proof that the Pope was none other than the antichrist foretold in these Scriptures. His evidence is tendentiously laid out, and he exerts abundant energy drawing exact correspondences between the details in these apocalyptic works and minute and arcane events that were already long past when he wrote this work. All of this builds into a crescendo when he unveils his most dramatic and sensational proof: “His mark is +++, and his name ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ [Lateinos], and the number of his name 666.”

I suppose that many of the readers of this article will find this shocking. At least I hope that you do. But it is worth recalling that Newton’s reasoning was very convincing to a man as intelligent and educated as the Anglican John Henry Newman, as he confesses in defense of his conversion to Catholicism in his classic Apologia Pro Vita Sua .

The reason this stance could seem so reasonable to both Newman and Newton is that long before either of them had come to be, Archbishop Cranmer had established the identity of the antichrist with the Pope and made it a fundamental point of Anglican doctrine. For instance, the “Exhortation to Obedience” that appears in the First Book of Homilies compiled by Cranmer for publication in 1547 (his successor, Matthew Parker expressly mentions the Homilies in Article Thirty-Five of the Thirty-Nine Articles) explicitly identifies the Pope as the antichrist:

For our Saviour Christ, and S. Peter, teacheth most earnestly and agreeably obedience to Kings, as to the chiefe and supreme rulers in this world, next under GOD: but the Bishop of Rome teacheth, that they that are under him, are free from all burdens and charges of the common wealth, and obedience toward their Prince, most clearely against Christs doctrine and S. Peters. He ought therefore rather to be called Antichrist, and the successour of the Scribes and Pharises, than Christs vicar, or S. Peters successour: seeing that not onely in this point, but also in other weighty matters of Christian religion, in matters of remission and forgivenesse of sinnes, and of salvation, hee teacheth so directly against both S. Peter, and against our Saviour Christ, who not onely taught obedience to Kings, but also practised obedience in their conversation and living.

Cranmer was surely simply expounding upon Luther on this point. It is well known that Luther recognized the Pope as the antichrist. The Smalcald Articles (1537) put it all plain enough:

II.IV.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.

Jean Calvin, in Article Eighteen of the Geneva Confession, does not use the term “antichrist,” but his words are no more pleasant to the ears of Catholics: “the churches governed by the ordinances of the pope are rather synagogues of the devil than Christian churches.”

The Westminster Confession, crafted by Anglican divines, but adhered to by Presbyterians, does not mince words: “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” (xxxv, 6). The Cambridge Platform of Church Discipline drafted by the Congregationalists of Massachusetts in 1648 quotes these words nearly verbatim, as does the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Rounding out dominant Anglo-American expressions of Christian faith, John Wesley says in his Explanatory Notes on Revelation 13, “The whole succession of Popes from Gregory VII are undoubtedly Antichrists. Yet this hinders not, but that the last Pope in this succession will be more eminently the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, adding to that of his predecessors a peculiar degree of wickedness from the bottomless pit.”

It is tempting for those of us Catholics who want to politely avoid conflict to imagine that these are the opinions of a younger, more bigoted Protestantism. Didn’t Vatican II demonstrate that Catholics and non-Catholic Christians could be friends? Hasn’t ecumenical dialogue established that our differences are significant, but essentially minor in light of the salvation offered by God the Father through Jesus Christ?

Alas, the suspicion that the Pope might be the antichrist is not just a nineteenth century fad for conspiracy theorists with a theological bent. Consider, if you will, the case of Robert Jeffress. Jeffress is a pastor in the Southern Baptist denomination, the second largest Christian denomination in the U.S. and the largest Protestant one; he pastors the First Baptist Church of Dallas, one of the largest congregations in the nation with over 12,000 members. But Jeffress also has nationwide exposure, because he has a popular, nationally syndicated radio program that broadcasts his sermons, Pathway to Victory . Finally, he has recently become a member of Trump's Evangelical Advisory Board and the White House Faith Initiative. That is not the resume you typically find listed for crackpot religious fanatics.

But in 2010, Jeffress preached these words, and chose to include them in a broadcast of Pathway to Victory :

This is the Babylonian mystery religion that spread like a cult throughout the entire world. The high priests of that fake religion, that false religion, the high priests of that religion would wear crowns that resemble the heads of fish, that was in order to worship the fish god Dagon, and on those crowns were written the words, ‘Keeper of the Bridge,’ the bridge between Satan and man.

That phrase, Keeper of the Bridge—the Roman equivalent of it is Pontifex Maximus. It was a title that was first carried by the Caesars and then the emperors and finally by the Bishop of the Rome, Pontifex Maximus, the Keeper of the Bridge.

You can see where we’re going with this. It is that Babylonian mystery religion that infected the early church. One of the churches it infected was the church of Pergamos, which is one of the recipients of the Book of Revelation. And the early church was corrupted by this Babylonian mystery religion, and today the Roman Catholic Church is the result of that corruption.

Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn’t come from God’s word; it comes from that cultlike, pagan religion. Now you say, ‘Pastor, how can you say such a thing? That is such an indictment of the Catholic Church. After all, the Catholic Church talks about God and the Bible and Jesus and the blood of Christ and salvation.’

Isn’t that the genius of Satan? If you want to counterfeit a dollar bill, you don’t do it with purple paper and red ink. You’re not going to fool anybody with that. But if you want to counterfeit money, what you do is make it look closely related to the real thing as possible. (Stephen Young, “Here’s What First Baptist Dallas Pastor Robert Jeffress Actually Said about Catholics—in Context,” The Dallas Observer, 10/27/17)

But you don’t have to be a Fundamentalist like Jeffress to still believe that the Pope is the antichrist. Paragraph 43 of the “Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod,” a document adopted in 1932, but still regarded as authoritative has this to say about the Pope:

As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation—these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy.

Likewise, the Wisconsin Synod adopted a “Statement on the Antichrist” in 1959. Section IV of that statement says:

Therefore on the basis of a renewed study of the pertinent Scriptures we reaffirm the statement of the Lutheran Confessions, that “the Pope is the very Antichrist”…, especially since he anathematizes the doctrine of the justification by faith alone and sets himself up as the infallible head of the Church.

We thereby affirm that we identify this “Antichrist” with the Papacy as it is known to us today, which shall, as 2 Thessalonians 2:8 states, continue to the end of time, whatever form or guise it may take. This neither means nor implies a blanket condemnation of all members of the Roman Catholic Church, for despite all the errors taught in that church the Word of God is still heard there, and that Word is an effectual Word. Isa 55:10, 11; cf. Apology XXIV, 98, cited above under II.

We make this confession in the confidence of faith. The Antichrist cannot deceive us if we remain under the revelation given us in the Apostolic word (2 Th. 2:13-17), for in God’s gracious governance of history the Antichrist can deceive only those who “refused to love the truth” (2 Th. 2:10-12).

And we make this confession in the confidence of hope. The Antichrist shall not destroy us but shall himself be destroyed—“Whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming” (2 Th. 2:8).

We reject the idea that the fulfillment of this prophecy is to be sought in the workings of any merely secular political power (2 Th. 2:4; cf. Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope, 39).

We reject the idea that the teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist rests on a merely human interpretation of history or is an open question. We hold rather that this teaching rests on the revelation of God in Scripture which finds its fulfillment in history. The Holy Spirit reveals this fulfillment to the eyes of faith (cf. The Abiding Word, Vol. 2, p. 764). Since Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized (2 Th. 2:6,8), and since this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture which reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

By now the pattern is fairly evident. There are variations, of course. Sometimes in Protestant literature the Pope is depicted not as the antichrist, but as an antichrist; often he is said to be second beast (given the label “false prophet” in Revelation 19:20) of Revelation 13, or else he is simply made out to be a precursor of the antichrist to come. In any case, the trope retains the same basic outline: the Bishop of Rome is in league with Satan, and is the head of a vast, worldwide conspiracy to lead people away from the truth of the Gospel and to believe a counterfeit religious system that may well result in their damnation. Usually this scheme involves a complicated attempt to unite the world’s religions under one system. Hence, ecumenical activities (like those promoted by the Eighth Day Institute!) are often viewed with extreme suspicion, especially when the Pope or a member of the papal curia endorses them.

In more modern times, a number of Eastern Orthodox clergy have begun to echo Protestant end-times sensationalists in regards to the Pope. Just a few weeks ago, during Pope Francis’ visit to Bulgaria, Metropolitan Nikolay of Plovdiv labeled the trip an “attack on Orthodoxy.” He promoted an eschatological conspiracy theory about Pope Francis’ motives for visiting the country: “The goal is to unite all the churches around Rome, and when the Antichrist comes, for the Pope to meet him” (Winfield, Nicole and Toshkov, Veselin, “Pope in Bulgaria says refugees need love; Orthodox stay away.” Associated Press : May 6, 2019 ).

This is not an isolated incident. About a year after he became Pope, Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus and Filaro and Andrew of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani and Konitsa published a lengthy open-letter to Francis full of the most incredible charges against Pope Francis personally and the Catholic Church as an institution. The letter manages to work in nearly as much anti-Semitism and anti-Protestantism as it does anti-Catholicism. It concludes with this amazing statement: “Truly, Your Excellency, what good can you possibly offer to the Orthodox, you who are the chosen Jesuit ‘Pope’ of the Jews, of the Rabbis, of the masons, of the dictators, of America, of Ecumenism, of Pan-religion, of the ‘New Age of Aquarius,’ and of the ‘New World Order’?” (Metropolitan Seraphim and Metropolitan Andrew, A Letter to Pope Francis Concerning His Past, the Abysmal State of Papism, and a Plea to Return to Holy Orthodoxy . The Orthodox Christian Information Center: April 14, 2014). Well before this, when Pope John Paul II visited Greece in 2001, he was greeted with massive, public protests featuring banners denouncing him as “antichrist” (CNN.com/World, “Papal visit sparks Greek protests”: May 4, 2001 ).

Perhaps most remarkable is the recent phenomenon in which American Catholic media persona who were wont to advertise themselves as “faithful to the magisterium” during the pontificates of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have adopted the eschatological madness of the more extreme, non-Catholic radio preachers, and identified Pope Francis as at least animated by the antichrist spirit. Steve Skojec is one of the more popular examples. On his website, onepeterfive.com, he has attacked Francis for a number of years. In August 14, 2018, this all built to a head. Opening his essay with a citation of Daniel 7:25, which speaks of the “little horn’s” war against the saints of God, he wrote the following: “I wrote before, years ago, that I believe Pope Francis to be a type of the Antichrist. A forerunner. A precursor. A man who ‘shares some noteworthy characteristics and ideological predilections that have long been foretold’ of this apocalyptic figure” (Steve Skojec, “Playing With Fire: Rosica, Francis, and the Spirit of the Antichrist”: August 14, 2018 ). The essay continues with the same sort of loosely strung together evidence that anyone can encounter in Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons or a Chick Tract. Needless to say, this is not the sort of thing that you expect to encounter on a Catholic website, particularly from someone who has made guest appearances on EWTN and contributed articles to Crisis magazine.

Another Catholic news source that routinely features anti-Francis stories is Lifesite News . They are not as explicit in their insinuations that Francis is in league with the prince of darkness, but they drop some pretty big breadcrumbs to lead their readers to that conclusion. Earlier this year, when the logo for Pope Francis’ visit to Morocco was unveiled, they quoted a number of unnamed “sources” who saw in the image of the cross superimposed over the crescent of Islam a token of Pope Francis’ commitment to religious syncretism. These mysterious sources invoked a comparison with the syncretism heralded by the villains of C. S. Lewis’ apocalyptic novel, The Last Battle : “It mirrors ‘the syncretism of Aslan and Tash invented by the Narnian version of the Antichrist,’ one source told LifeSite” (Diane Montagna, “Tashlan comes to town: Vatican releases combined cross and crescent logo for Pope’s trip to Morocco,” LifeSite News : January 8, 2019).

Thanks be to God, opinions can change on almost anything, including the identification of the Pope with Antichrist. I began this piece with a reference to the forcefulness that Sir Isaac Newton’s arguments on this matter exercised upon the young theological mind of John Henry Newman. By degrees, exposure to the Early Church Fathers forced him from this uncharitable position. He describes this shift in opinion in Part V of the 1865 edition of his Apologia :

By 1838 I had got no further than to consider Antichrist, as not the Church of Rome, but the spirit of the old pagan city, the fourth monster of Daniel, which was still alive, and which had corrupted the Church which was planted there. Soon after this indeed, and before my attention was directed to the Monophysite controversy, I underwent a great change of opinion. I saw that, from the nature of the case, the true Vicar of Christ must ever to the world seem like Antichrist, and be stigmatized as such, because a resemblance must ever exist between an original and a forgery; and thus the fact of such a calumny was almost one of the notes of the Church. But we cannot unmake ourselves or change our habits in a moment. Though my reason was convinced, I did not throw off, for some time after, the unreasoning prejudice and suspicion, which I cherished about her, at least by fits and starts, in spite of conviction of my reason.

This process of gradually being weaned off of suspicions of the Pope being the antichrist is quite familiar to me. Because I did not grow up in a denomination with an established creed, there was no doctrinal standard about the antichrist that my church held to. For the most part, my preachers shied away from eschatological matters, deeming them too controversial and sensationalistic. But Catholicism was the mother of denominations, and in some sense, held responsible for the apostasy that Christendom had suffered. One of my most revered Bible college professors, in a lesson on Daniel 7, taught us that the little horn was the antichrist known as the Pope of the Catholic Church. I had other professors who would have disputed this, but only reluctantly. My Church history professor told us that the only reason that Catholicism was somewhat respected by other Christians is because it had the veneer of antiquity. If someone were to start the same religion in modern times, mature Christians would have immediately recognized it as a wacky cult.

Years later, my wife and I were working in a Messianic Jewish congregation in Beer-Sheva, Israel. The pastor who I was serving under held some very anti-Catholic prejudices, and when I challenged them, we found ourselves at odds with one another. He attempted to sway me with literature that can best be described as a revisionist history of the Church. Anyone who had challenged the authority of the Catholic Church, no matter how heretical they might be, was made out to be a hero and a precursor of Protestant Christianity. This included examples as extreme as the Bogomils, Cathars, and Albigensians. As a result, I began my own personal study of the early Church to determine whether or not the Pope really was the antichrist, and if so, when he had emerged as such. Ironically, my wife and I owe much to this anti-Catholic pastor for indirectly persuading us that the Bishop of Rome is actually the successor of Peter.

One day, in the midst of this study, I was overcome with grief for my previous ill will towards the Catholic Church. I had recently made the acquaintance of a Catholic priest from France who was serving the tiny parish in Beer-Sheva. I called him up and made an appointment. I’ll never forget how awkward that first private conversation with Fr. Paul was. He sat blinking at me over his pipe while I attempted, in broken Hebrew, to express my sorrow for my prior bigotry toward the Catholic Church. I knew that I wanted to get something off of my chest, but I wasn’t sure exactly how to go about it. He was utterly confused, especially when I burst into tears, completely to my own surprise. He made a kind-hearted but obviously bewildered attempt to comfort me, accepted my apology, but did not make any illusions of trying to demonstrate that he knew just why I was asking for his forgiveness. It didn’t matter. I felt better. I thanked him. A few months later, I would return and ask him to receive my family into the Catholic Church, and he would eventually become a source of great counsel to us, as well as a dear friend.

For both Newman and myself, coming to terms with our personal, anti-Catholic heritage was part of a repentant journey that resulted, ultimately, in casting aside our non-Catholic identities and, as individuals , coming into full communion with the Catholic Church that has the Pope as its visible, spiritual head. In his Theological Reflections on Vatican II , Joseph Ratzinger, who served as a peritus during the Council, explains why he does not think that this sort of individualistic conversion is the ideal manner of restoring unity to the Church. Rather, what we should be hoping and working towards is the restoration of entire non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities to communion with the Roman Church. This would require allowing these faith communities to retain their local and integral identities and traditions, and even, inasmuch as it might be possible, (and to what extent this can be has never been thoroughly explored), allowing them some measure of doctrinal autonomy. (This is surely in reference more to the manner of teaching the faith, rather than the content of this faith).

I think that Fr. Georges Florovsky, the other patron of our Florovsky-Newman Week, and a Russian Orthodox priest and theologian, would substantially agree with this model of pursuing Christian unity. When Pope Paul VI met with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in the Holy Land in 1964, Florovsky responded with a very sober expression of hope. His words are surely worthy of consideration today, 55 years later:

The Palestinian meeting of the Patriarchs—of the new and the old Rome, long and still divided—is, in any case, a timely reminder, in fact a double reminder, of the fact of separation and of the task of unity. A reminder and a summons. . . . This is only the beginning of the way. In the apt expression of St. Basil the Great, “the beginning of the way is not yet the way.” The question now is how the voice of the Church will respond to this reminder and summons. The subject of Rome is once again brought before Orthodox consciousness. For some, Rome is a Church, even though a “separated Church.” For others, Rome is simply outside the Church. There are similar disagreements among Roman theologians, with a variety of nuances. The question of Rome is a question of ecclesiology (“A Sign of Contradiction” translated by Fr. Matthew Baker in Dialogue of Love: Breaking the Silence of Centuries edited by John Chryssavgis).

So, no shortcuts towards unity.

That said, it is quite apparent that there cannot even be meaningful dialogue towards unity between Catholics and other Christians while suspicions that the Bishop of Rome whom Catholics identify as the very symbol of unity might in fact be the antichrist. Unfortunately, out of a misplaced sense of politeness, I find that non-Catholics avoid the issue. This is not helpful at all. We will never be able to have an honest conversation about the papacy as long as we skirt around it because it makes us uncomfortable.

Perhaps (a rather extreme) example will illustrate my frustration. About fifteen years ago, not long after we had become Catholic, some of my wife’s Catholic family came to visit us in Israel. Naturally enough, we took them on a tour of the holy sites. One morning we were visiting the Mount of Beatitudes, and before leaving the site, our friends wanted to pop into the souvenir shop attached to the grounds there. For some reason, we caught the attention of a pastor’s wife who was on pilgrimage with a large group. (I guess our Evangelical scent had not quite worn off). She intercepted us on the way into the door, and said, “You need to know that just up the road there is a lovely gift shop owned by a family of true, Christian believers. You should go and support them. A large portion of every dollar you spend here goes straight to the Vatican, and is used to promote the false gospel of the antichrist and keep unbelievers in bondage.”

Where she had heard this slander, I have no idea, but I can assure you that “the Vatican” sees very little of the money made at any of the souvenir shops in the holy land. The families running the shops make a comfortable living for themselves, and the shops that are attached to the holy sites such as this one also contribute to the upkeep of the sites and the religious communities that maintain them. But I did not even bother with correcting this. Instead, I firmly but politely let the well-meaning woman know that we were in fact Catholic, and actually wouldn’t mind some of our money being used for evangelism by “the Vatican.” And then I braced myself for a fight.

The fight didn’t come. Instead, the woman’s demeanor suddenly changed, and she began to bubble about all of the Catholics she knew who were indeed real, Bible-believing Christians. We couldn’t get away in time to avoid her pastor-husband taking notice of us, and joining in to share about all of the ecumenical dialogue he participates in back home. “Oh, some of my strongest Christian friendships are with priests I know in this pastoral association back home. Strong men of God, filled with the Spirit. And so committed to the pro-life movement!” And on it went for a miserable five minutes or so.

These sorts of encounters happen all of the time, although usually not with such a sudden shift in tone. I do not know what to make of them. But I cannot ignore my growing suspicion that many of the non-Catholics who tell me how dear this or that exceptional Catholic in their life might be are simply being insincere. I would prefer that they would tell me that as long as I claim allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, I am damned to hell. After all, if they really believe that I am endangering my soul by being a Catholic, shouldn’t Christian charity compel them to warn me?

We mentioned Robert Jeffress and his sensational, 2010 anti-Catholic sermon earlier. Years later, when he gained a national spotlight because of his involvement in the Trump-campaign, this sermon was dug up because of an invitation his church made to Sean Hannity to speak to the congregation; Hannity happens to be a practicing Roman Catholic. Quite understandably, people wanted to know why he would permit a devotee to rewarmed-Dagon-hat-wearing paganism to potentially lead his flock astray. What was different? Jeffress insisted to the Religion News Service that his earlier statements about Catholicism had been “ripped out of their context,” and claimed that he had always recognized Hannity as a “fellow Christian.” “No one goes to heaven in a group. We go one by one based on our relationship with Christ. … There will be millions of Catholics in heaven who have put their faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. There will also be millions of Baptists in hell who have not put their faith in Christ” (Jonathan Merritt, “Why pastor Robert Jeffress’ interview with Sean Hannity was so maddening to so many,” October 25, 2017).

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has carried out a very similar thing, although with the sort of careful, educated classiness for which they have a reputation. Their Book of Confessions includes the Westminster Confession, including section xxxv, 6, but instead of mentioning the antichrist, they have reworded it so that it is an affirmation of the presbyterial model of church governance.

Why should this bother me, a Catholic? Because no one has dealt with the original words of the Westminster Confession. They have simply swept the libel against the Pope under the rug, where it won’t have to embarrass anyone any more. Now we can get past all of that awkward, eschatological stuff. But some Catholics have long memories. As far as I can tell, neither the Church of Scotland nor the Presbyterian churches that are descended from her have ever issued a formal apology for anti-Catholic bigotry. We cannot pretend that nothing ever came of those libels. John Knox, the father of the Church of Scotland, describes in vivid detail in his History of the Reformation in Scotland what happened on May 11, 1559, when he preached a sermon against Catholic idolatry in St. John the Baptist’s Church in Perth and roused the congregation to action against the religious houses in their neighborhood. For the next two days, the populace rioted, and when they were done, they had looted, desecrated and destroyed four monasteries in the locale. This is just one horrific incident among many. But no more has been done to express sorrow for even this one act of violence against houses of worship than to get rid of the embarrassing mention of the antichrist in the Westminster Confession.

Admittedly, it took Catholics a while to get around to apologizing for our own crimes against Protestants, some of which helped to provoke the outbreak of violence at St. John the Baptist’s Church. But recently, our popes have made a number of public apologies, and begged for forgiveness. For instance, in 2000, Pope John Paul II said, “We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed toward followers of other religions” (news.bbc.co.uk, “Pope apologises for church sins,” Sunday, 12 March, 2000). And in January of 2016, Pope Francis asked for forgiveness for “the un-gospel like behavior by Catholics towards Christians of other Churches” (Reuters, “Why Pope Francis Just Asked Protestants for Forgiveness”). But it seems to me that this new habit of making apologies for the injustices of the Reformation era is up to this point uniquely Catholic. If we are really to move forward in dialogue with one another, we cannot keep avoiding the antichrist-libel.

For this reason, I have a great deal more respect for Lutherans of the Wisconsin and Missouri Synods. At least they are consistent and faithful to their founding documents, without shying away from the difficult parts of them. I see in these two churches worthy and honorable rivals who are not yet ready to concede any common ground too quickly. And yet, I must confess, they too perplex me. My Lutheran friends express to me their esteem for Catholic theologians, including one who would become a Pope towards the end of his career, Joseph Ratzinger. How can it be possible to benefit from exposure to theology espoused by the antichrist? Look, if you heard someone say, “Oh, he’s the antichrist, all right, but he’s a pretty good one, and his writings have helped me grow theologically,” you’d think that they were daft, wouldn’t you? But isn’t that what Lutheran Ratzinger fan-boys have to say, if they subscribe to the Book of Concord ?

So, I’m confused. I’m not crazy am I? Whether or not the Pope is the antichrist should be a pretty big deal for Catholics and the Protestants who love them, shouldn’t it be? Then let’s stop being so polite, and begin the hard work of encountering one another on that question. We live in a blessed time where we can have these discussions without fear of bloodshed. Let’s take advantage of it, rather than dancing awkwardly around it and pretending that we’ve always just got on famously with one another. I think that we are finally at a point in history where we have realized that we want to get along with one another. But being too nice will simply sabotage it all.

Matthew Umbarger is an Assistant Professor of Theology at Newman University who specializes in Old Testament Interpretation.

Click here to learn more about Florovksy-Newman Week.

Click here to register.


Contribute to Cultural Renewal by Sharing on Your Preferred Platform

In an isolating secularized culture where the Church's voice is muffled through her many divisions, Christians need all the help they can get to strengthen their faith in God and love toward their neighbor.  Eighth Day Institute  offers hope to all Christians through our adherence to the Nicene faith, our ecumenical dialogues of love and truth, and our many events and publications to strengthen faith, grow in wisdom, and foster Christian friendships of love.  Will you join us in our efforts to renew soul & city?  Donate today and join the community of Eighth Day Members who are working together to renew culture through faith & learning.

By Jason M. Baxter October 23, 2024
by Jason M. Baxter Commemoration of St Lucian the Martyr of Antioch  Anno Domini 2024, October 15
By Pseudo-Dionysios January 3, 2024
by Pseudo-Dionysios Commemoration of St Malachi the Prophet Anno Domini 2024, January 3
By Evagrios the Solitary January 3, 2024
by Evagrios the Solitary Commemoration of St Sylvester, Pope of Rome Anno Domini 2024, January 2
By Eric Peterson January 2, 2024
by Eric Peterson Commemoration of St Cosmas, Archbishop of Constantinople Anno Domini 2024, January 2
By Jaraslov Pelikan January 1, 2024
by Jaraslov Pelikan Commemoration of the Circumcision of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Anno Domini 2024, January 1
By St John of Damascus December 31, 2023
by St John of Damascus Commemoration of St Melania the Younger, Nun of Rome Anno Domini 2023, December 31
By Erin Doom December 30, 2023
by Erin Doom Commemoration of St Anysia the Virgin-Martyr of Thessaloniki Anno Domini 2023, December 30
By Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis December 29, 2023
by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis Commemoration of the 14,000 Infants (Holy Innocents) Slain by Herod in Bethlehem Anno Domini 2023, December 29
By Fr Thomas Hopko December 28, 2023
by Fr. Thomas Hopko Commemoration of the 20,000 Martyrs Burned in Nicomedia Anno Domini 2023, December 28
By Monk of the Eastern Church December 27, 2023
by a Monk of the Eastern Church Feast of St Stephen the Archdeacon & First Martyr Third Day of Christmas Anno Domini 2023, December 27
More Posts
Share by: