The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, formally known as the Office of Inquisition, stresses the need that all Christians be Catholic.
The quest for world-wide Catholicism continues in 2012Pope Benedict XVI released an “apostolic” letter, Porta Fidei, proclaiming the Year of Faith for 2012.
Starting Oct. 11, 2012 through Nov. 24,2012, the church will focus of world-wide Christian unity. The dates are signifigant. Oct. 11th is the 50th anniversary of Vatican II. Nov. 24th the Roman Catholic church celebrates the feast of Christ the King.
The Vatican state that this special year should be “a propitious occasion to make Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church more widely and deeply known.”
The Year of Faith will include the following initiatives:
- At the worldwide level, Pope Benedict will preside at a solemn opening celebration for the Year of Faith. The Vatican plans special ecumenical efforts, pushing toward Christian unity, including “a solemn ecumenical celebration in which all of the baptized will reaffirm their faith in Christ.”
- At the national level, episcopal conferences will be encourage to focus on “the quality of catechesis,” and to ensure that the teaching of the faith is in “complete conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The bishops’ conferences will be strongly encouraged to use all available media outlets to promote that goal.
- At the diocesan level, the CDF calls for “renewed creative dialogue between faith and reason in the academic and artistic communities,” and for penitential celebrations, with a particular emphasis on asking God’s forgiveness for sins against the faith.At the parish level, the Year of Faith should be centered on the community liturgy, and specially the Eucharist, the CDF says. All other initiatives should be based on that foundation.
The Vatican will set up a special website to promote the initiative and a secretariat will be appointed within the Pontifical Council of the New Evangelization to promote the cause.
Source: catholicculture.org
My Comment:
It looks like they have boots on the ground.
Has the Roman Catholic church changed in it’s desire to make the world Catholic? No. The Office of Inquisition continues it’s PR push for world domination. The Vatican will be pushing hard for ecumenical unity this year. She will attempt more dialogue with the artistic and intellectual communities but especially non-Catholic Christians. The church will conduct penance services that ask God to forgive those against the Catholic faith.
Many denominations and churches will participate in these ecumenical services, blurring the lines of truth and putting a veil over the Gospel.
Nothing the Vatican or world leaders attempt has not first passed through the hands of our Sovereign God, who works all thing for good for those who love Him. These things must take place before He returns.
We don’t need to fear the changes taking place, economic collapse and slow but steady erasure of borders. We do not need to fear. We know who holds our future, and by His Word, holds the whole world together.
So we give thanks for everything, walking in the Word until our redemption draws nigh.
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Written by Sue
Like this:
Filed under: Catholic, Deception, End Times, False Christianity, False Ecumenism, Vatican
Sue: You and I have been over some of this before. I too don’t believe in the doctrines of the papacy, but the RCC has always stood for the Incarnation and deity of Christ, the Trinity of God, the virgin birth, vicarious atonement, resurrection, ascension, etc. And myself, I just don’t see the RCC as still Antichrist! And even in his time, neither did the so-called Lutheran, Philip Melanchton, at least fully. This does not mean that Rome does not have error, it most certainly does! But not I think at the level that you want to press on the RCC. BUT, it could surely again become what it did in Luther’s time, at least somewhat, if it receives a bad pope! We would somewhat agree here! Right now Benedict/Ratzinger kinda holds the Roman Church together, at least in some theological and historical sense, but when he goes, who knows what the RCC will become? I know many Roman Catholics, even priests and some theologians, that I would consider real Christians! So we must be very careful in my regard, what we say “definitively” about Catholicism, we could very well be speaking against what God Himself has done and allowed! And it just could be, that we all have missed the fulness of the Eschatological truth of God? Let us all walk in humility before the Lord, especially those of us that feel WE have become regenerate by the grace of God in Christ! Note, btw Mark 9: 38-41, etc. Such texts should really again humble us! Our Lord surely hates Sectarianism!
The chief danger with the RCC is the false gospel of salvation through works. Right there, that is enough; just as a dead man’s heart not beating equates to death; so too believing one can work their way into eternal life is death and a false gospel. (There is no need for a long list of heresies to be false)
The previous author mentioned that the RCC held to certain orthodox doctrines regarding Christ; yet, they deny Christ by replacing Him with a man–a pope. That is antichrist.
To be in the eternal kingdom of God one must be born again of the spirit. John 3:3,6,7 I believe that the RCC is a religion based in unregenerated flesh and not of the Spirit of God. It is useless.
Religion can not save us. Only repentance and faith in the true gospel translates us from darkness to life in Christ Jesus. This is not a religion but it is the power of God. Romans 1:16
Eph 2:9-10; Titus 3:3-7
Sincerely
My brother,
Did the apostles teach to convert or die? Did they teach the infallibility of man and promote prayers to the dead?
The office of Inquisition STILL exists.
The error already exists, we don’t need a bad pope to have antichrist. The “seat” of the “holy father” is already the continuation of the man of lawlessness, immune to international law even.
Does it mean nothing they call for world govt. and a world bank,begging for a stronger UN with teeth?
What if Luther was careful and never opened his mouth? Shall I be quiet when my friends and family bow before statues?
There are many Catholics, that are Christians and I do not disagree with that. I was one, per se. BUT. The full gospel was not given to me, and I remained in bondage until I was set free. The Jesus of Rome is not Jesus of Nazareth.
Sue: Just based on good logic, we know that light and darkness cannot exist together, so the fact that one can know the Lord near the place of darkness, tells us that Catholicism itself is not ALL darkness, then simply none could or would be “regenerate”! We agree somewhat that ROME, or the “papacy” is not again the fulness of God. But this idea that ALL popes are somehow in the “seat” of the so-called “man of lawlessness”, just does not measure up to both good logic, and the aspect of that truth the Roman Catholic Church does have. I can say for myself, that I learned the love of God in the Roman Catholic Church, as the doctrine of the Incarnation, the deity of Christ, the Trinity of God, the virgin birth, etc. as I have mentioned. My first Irish priest, when I asked him: who is that man on the Cross? Told me in my first simple gospel message – that is Jesus, God Incarnate who died for your sins!
*Don’t judge my sister the whole Catholic Church and Body, by the worst of your own experiences, and even bad priests and doctrine. I think you will find it serious error at the Bema-Seat of Christ! I say this in good conscience and certain love, but of course YOU alone must measure your own said, conscience & heart! But again, I speak as both a brother, and a pastor. God Bless, my Irish Sue!
Robert,
I don’t judge well meaning priests,people etc. I speak against the system. I too, learned to know God as a Catholic. But the Gospel of Rome is not the same Gospel as the bible, and therefore you and I were duped.I kissed statues, I prayed to “Saints”, I did things the Lord hates, especially praying to the Queen of Heaven.
The RCC is either true or diabolical. There is no in between. Even the RCC says “no salvation outside of RCC”
The blood of the saints are on her hands.
Sue: That’s the whole point, at least from what I believe. And I try to judge by both the theological, and this includes the biblical, and too my own historical experience. I just don’t have quite the negative view of Rome that you have, from both the theological and the historical. I have in fact many good and I feel godly memories of being raised Roman Catholic in Ireland. Most, certainly not all, of my priests were very helpful in my Roman Catholic time, I left Rome in my 20′s, though I had had other real Christian experiences outside Rome, with friends and even family. In fact as I have said, I learned to “think” as a Roman Catholic. And as I have said before, my first degree was from a Roman Catholic college, a BA in Philosophy. And for this I am thankful! I did not learn Catholic doctrine here or there at all, but simply and I think somewhat profoundly, I learned Greek and somewhat Roman and Western Philosophy. And I see this first degree as really the formation of my so-called Christian education. Again, I am talking about how to think and reason. Of course there is no perfection here, but it was again “formational” for me. In fact, I simply place my Pauline & Augustinian conversion within this place in my life! Later certainly came my understanding of both the Reformation and the Reformed.
I do not see that in the above article or comments that SueLiz is judging the RCC by her ‘bad experiences’ (etc). In fact, that accusation seems mean, like hitting under the belt. Benedict preaches salvation through a church & that “outside the church there is no salvation”. This is not even the good news of Jesus Christ! I don’t care what ‘warm fuzzies’ you or I have had in our RCC experiences, it was still w/in the confines of a boat being lead by a man and NOT by my Master, Jesus.
I am not “judging” Sue at all, but we must think and challenge ourselves, and in my opinion, both “theologically” and with my own past and even present experience, the Roman Catholic Church is just not the Antichrist! Note, I have one of doctorates on Luther, so I know this whole road. But this is just not the 16th century! And I too can be very critical of Rome and Catholicism, but one simply must think theologically in their biblicism! And this is just rarely done with many that have a bone to pick with Roman Catholicism! Sorry, I just see rant here, rather than theology or biblicism!
Do not forget also, their pursual to divide Israel and regain the Holy Land for their own. God is not mocked. He gave us a church, a fellowship of believers, not a nation-state, seeking world power through concordats (with Hitler) with governments.
Robert,
You said:
And it just could be, that we all have missed the fulness of the Eschatological truth of God?
My reply?
What do you mean by this??
Sue,
This would be very “theological” for me to explain, since many people think of “eschatology” as simply end-time aspects. But really it touches the whole of even Christology itself! For Christ has even now begun His “end-time” work, at the Right-Hand of the Father! I will let you “think” about that for a bit!
The Papacy is the Antichrist
http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf
rant? hmmm. That’s cold Robert.
My Dear Sue,
I am not seeking to be “cold”, but we must be real and look very hard at ourselves in this whole process! I mean we all come from somewhere, and we all have our presuppositions. Btw, I was in fact more responding to the last person, rather than directly at you. But again, we must first deal with ourselves, before we can deal with anything else. Sometimes I get almost a conspiratorial aspect with many that are against Rome! And this is simply not how we must approach this whole subject. But these are my thoughts anway.
*anyway
Dear Sue,
I did not mean to offend you at all, sometimes however, the “truth” does offend, as I know you would agree. Which of us is under the “truth” here? is for each of us to work on ourselves, and seek to stand “under” fully! But we all have feet of clay.
Dear Robert,
I am not a theologian. The gospel is pretty simple. It was not simple as a catholic. There were many hoops to jump through to stay out of mortal sin. Missing a feast day..mortal sin. Missing mass..mortal sin. Eat meat on Friday…mortal sin (during Lent). On and on and on.
Understanding the true Gospel is freedom. My dear Catholic friends don’t understand what this freedom is.They believe I am a horrible heretic. Because they make sure to go to church on the feast day of the Assumption , they are still in “grace.” . This is not the gospel of our Lord.
It seems your warm feelings towards individuals, keeps a door to Rome open in your heart.
I can see the big picture what Rome is saying and doing. Every day I see it, see contradictions with scripture, and their desire for an ‘international authority.’ I never judge the people. But when the catechism says Muslims worship the same god, and that Buddhist CAN achieve divine illumination by meditation, something is wrong.
Since you think my theological ignorance is a rant, please explain how biblically, Rome is not antichrist.
Ms Sue,
First, I am one of those “theologians”, or as I prefer to say it, a “theolog”.
So you perhaps know by now thats the way it goes for me, but always, always I hope in a pastoral way! But I too have my feet of clay.
I would agree with you generally about the canon law, or legal status in Roman Catholicism, this is part of a Church tradition that has been very judicial or judiciary for centuries. But in fact we can find legalism in so many churches even today. So that in and of itself does not make a church “antichrist”. About the doctrine of Vatican II, and Buddhists, Muslims, etc., I would agree with you, they are simply not “Brethren”! Indeed this is a form of liberal theology, simply. But, what about the Jewish people? Now there is where we might have a problem, for they too have the “Covenant/covenants” of God, of course this is the OT. But they reject Christ, or Jesus as the Christ, but this is also more of the held line or position, since their history, etc. Has every Jew that has died been lost, or has every Jew rejected Jesus as the Christ? That I cannot answer fully myself, for we simply don’t know? I am as you know somewhat Reformed, so I place these things under the hand and will of a Sovereign God! I know that without Christ, and His redemption, no one is has salvation! So with that, I leave such issues there.
As to “Rome” and the papacy, I am not happy myself with much of it theologically, but there again, even with all the errors, the RCC still teaches, at least in their catechism, and I know some of their priests and some of their best theologians (personally) and many teach Christ as Lord, the One God-Man, etc. So how we can say that the whole Church is antichrist? And I have read much of Ratzinger before and after he became pope, and he is perhaps the most theological, and too Augustinian, that the modern RCC has had in so-called modern time. Bad doctrine, yes.. false doctrine, perhaps there too no doubt, but fully Antichrist? Not at least by their theological definition, as too the lives of many, who simply love and worship Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior!
I did not say “your theological ignorance is a rant”, but sometimes I have seen this with many former R. Catholics. As too many on your blog! Most of this comes thru ignorance, sadly too in bigotry with many. I see it in Anglicanism too, with many people who just hate the so-called “High Church”, though in Anglicanism, there has always been Evangelicals. Many people don’t even know that John Wesley and his brother Charles were Anglicans. So anyway, we must read our Bibles surely, but also theologically and historically. Just a personal question, but do you feel that both pope’s John Paul and Benedict/Ratzinger were and are Christians, personally?
No worries Robert. You are a brother and a kind hearted man. I just want to understand your viewpoint.
I was reading a sermon by Charles Spurgeon a while ago. Anyway, good sermon. Wanted to include his personal rant on this subject. Seems Spurgeon went a bit further as he describes the AC. He was not alone in his thinking.
“It is the duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is. No sane man ought to raise a question. If it is not the Popery in the Church of Rome and in the Church of England, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up those two churches on suspicion, and they certainly would not be let loose again, for they so exactly answer the description.
Popery anywhere, whether it be Anglican or Romish, is contrary to Christ’s Gospel! And it is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it! It should be the daily prayer of every Believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and sink to rise no more. If we can pray against error for Christ because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His Atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth—if we pray against it because it is against Him—we shall love the persons though we hate their errors! We shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray. We are to pray for Him.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/spurgeon/sermons12.l.html?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=72&scrV=15#highlight
I also wanted to include a statement by Pius IX and some documentation from New Advent that I find interesting.
Pope Pius IX (1846-1878)
The Catholic Church which was founded and instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to procure the eternal salvation of men, has, by reason of this divine institution, the form of a perfect society. Therefore, she must possess liberty such that she cannot be subject to any civil power in the execution of her sacred ministry.
To act with freedom, as it is just she should, she has always needed the assistance which was suitable to the conditions and the necessities of the age. It is, therefore, by a particular decree of Divine Providence that, at the fall of the Roman Empire and its partition into separate kingdoms, the Roman Pontiff, whom Christ made the head and center of his entire Church, acquired civil power.
Certainly, it was by a most wise design of God Himself that in the midst of so great a multitude and variety of temporal princes, the Sovereign Pontiff enjoyed political liberty, which is so necessary for him to exercise his spiritual power, his authority, and his jurisdiction over the whole world.
Source: Papal Teachings: The Church, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, R.S.C.J., Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart, St. Paul Editions, Boston, © 1980, 1962 by Daughters of St. Paul, Library of Congress catalog card number 62-12454, par. #225, page 160.
La Chiesa Cattolica fondata e istituita da Cristo Signore per provvedere alla salvezza eterna degli uomini, avendo conseguito, in forza della sua divina istituzione, la forma di società perfetta, deve godere, nell’esercizio del suo sacro ministero, di quella libertà che la sottrae alla soggezione di qualsivoglia potere civile.
Poiché per operare liberamente, come era necessario, doveva fruire di quei supporti che rispondevano alle condizioni e alle esigenze dei tempi, per una speciale disposizione della divina Provvidenza avvenne che, quando l’Impero Romano si dissolse e fu diviso in vari regni, il Romano Pontefice, costituito da Cristo capo e centro di tutta la Chiesa, ottenne un Principato civile.
Questo fu disposto con somma sapienza da Dio stesso, perché in mezzo ad una tale moltitudine e varietà di sovrani temporali, il Sommo Pontefice disponesse di quella libertà politica che era indispensabile per esercitare, senza alcun impedimento, il suo potere spirituale, la sua autorità e la sua giurisdizione sul mondo intero. − Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Cum Catholica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860.
St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO
CHAPTER XXXII — TRYPHO OBJECTING THAT CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS GLORIOUS BY DANIEL, JUSTIN DISTINGUISHES TWO ADVENTS.
… and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. …
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm
——————————————————————————–
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202)
Adversus haereses (inter A.D. 180/199)
Book V, Chapter 26
John and Daniel have predicted the dissolution and desolation of the Roman Empire, which shall precede the end of the world and the eternal Kingdom of Christ. The Gnostics are refuted, those tools of Satan, who invent another Father different from the Creator.
1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, …
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0103526.htm
Book V, Chapter 30
Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.
2. These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. …
3. It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (EUAN QAS) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (LATEINOS) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: …
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm
——————————————————————————–
Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century)
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.” What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? “And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.”
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm
CHAP. XXXII.
There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock im (43) pending over the whole earth–in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes—is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration.
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm
——————————————————————————–
Hippolytus (3rd Century)
TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST.
25. Then he says: “A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.” And who are these but the Romans? which (kingdom) is meant by the iron–the kingdom which is now established; for the legs of that (image) were of iron. And after this, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part is iron and part clay, mixed together?
And mystically by the toes of the feet he meant the kings who are to arise from among them; as Daniel also says (in the words), “I considered the beast, and lo there were ten horns behind it, among which shall rise another (horn), an offshoot, and shall pluck up by the roots the three (that were) before it.”
And under this was signified none other than Antichrist, who is also himself to raise the kingdom of the Jews. He says that three horns are plucked up by the root by him, viz., the three kings of Egypt, and Libya, and Ethiopia, whom he cuts off in the array of battle. And he, after gaining terrible power over all, being nevertheless a tyrant, shall stir up tribulation and persecution against men, exalting himself against them. For Daniel says: “I considered the horn, and behold that horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, till the beast was slain and perished, and its body was given to the burning of fire.”
26. …
27. As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey.
28. The golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexander’s time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst; the stone that smites the earth and brings judgment upon the world was Christ.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm
——————————————————————————–
St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd Century)
TREATISE XI.
EXHORTATION TO MARTYRDOM, ADDRESSED TO FORTUNATUS.
PREFACE.
1. You have desired, beloved Fortunatus that, l since the burden of persecutions and afflictions is lying heavy upon us, and in the ending and completion of the world the hateful time of Antichrist is already beginning to draw near, I would collect from the sacred Scriptures some exhortations for preparing and strengthening the minds of the brethren, whereby I might animate the soldiers of Christ for the heavenly and spiritual contest.
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0507.htm
——————————————————————————–
Lactantius Firminianous (4th Century)
Divine Institutions (Divinae Institutiones)
Book VII, Chapter 25, OF THE LAST TIMES, AND OF THE CITY OF ROME:
These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: … The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things; and the God of heaven is to be entreated by us and implored — if, indeed, His arrangements and decrees can be delayed — lest, sooner than we think for, that detestable tyrant should come who will trader-take so great a deed, and dig out that eye, by the destruction of which the world itself is about to fall.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07017.htm
——————————————————————————–
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) Doctor of the Church
Catechetical Lectures
LECTURE XV.
ON THE CLAUSE, AND SHALL COME IN GLORY TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD; OF WHOSE KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END, DANIEL vii. 9–14.
12. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself. At first indeed he will put on a show of mildness (as though he were a learned and discreet person), and of soberness and benevolence: and by the lying [108] signs and wonders of his magical deceit a having beguiled the Jews, as though he were the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all kinds of crimes of inhumanity and lawlessness, so as to outdo all unrighteous and ungodly men who have gone before him displaying against all men, but especially against us Christians, a spirit murderous and most cruel, merciless and crafty. And after perpetrating such things for three years and six months only, he shall be destroyed by the glorious second advent from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the true Christ, who shall slay Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, and shall deliver him over to the fire of hell.
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/310115.htm
——————————————————————————–
St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) Doctor of the Church
Homilies on Second Thessalonians
HOMILY IV. 2 THESSALONIANS ii. 6–9.
“And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming: even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan.”
ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. … And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it–but what? “that he may be revealed in his own season,” he says, “For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work.” He speaks here of Nero, as if he were the type of Antichrist. For he too wished to be thought a god. And he has well said, “the mystery”; that is, it worketh not openly, as the other, nor without shame. For if there was found a man before that time, he means, who was not much behind Antichrist in wickedness, what wonder, if there shall now be one? But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is noting to call for it. So indeed he also says here. “Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way,” that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exit himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.
“And then,” he says, “shall be revealed the lawless one.” And what after this? The consolation is at hand. “Whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming, even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan.”
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm
——————————————————————————–
St. Jerome (c. 340-420) Doctor of the Church
Commentary on Daniel, Chapter 7, Verse 8:
“… We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings, …”
Source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm
Letter CXXIII
TO AGERUCHIA (409)
16. But what am I doing? Whilst I talk about the cargo, the vessel itself founders. He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near. Yes, Antichrist is near whom the Lord Jesus Christ “shall consume with the spirit of his mouth.” “Woe unto them,” he cries, “that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days.” …
17. … For thirty years the barbarians burst the barrier of the Danube and fought in the heart of the Roman Empire. Long use dried our tears. For all but a few old people had been born either in captivity or during a blockade, and consequently they did not miss a liberty which they had never known. Yet who will hereafter credit the fact or what histories will seriously discuss it, that Rome has to fight within her own borders not for glory but for bare life; …
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/3001123.htm
——————————————————————————–
St. Augustine of Hippo (345 – 430) Doctor of the Church
City of God, Book XX, Chapter 19
For what does he [Paul] mean by “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?” [2 Thess 2] I frankly confess I do not know what he means. … However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, “Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,” refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, “Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way.” “And then shall the wicked be revealed:” no one doubts that this means Antichrist.
Source: http://newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm
Dawn Marie,
First, I read Spurgeon sometimes, he was a grand preacher certainly, but a theologian? Sadly no! His diatribe against Anglicanism, is simply way off base, and rather ignorant theologically. I know this might sound shocking to many ears, but that is just plain, historically. I could list so many Anglican theologs and theologians from his time, that were just solid and really conservative Christians. And I know many Evangelical Christian theolog’s know this today also! Spurgeon just writes in his zeal and his Baptist roots, which are really Calvinist. Note I am close to John Calvin myself theologically, I would consider myself something of a Calvinist, though I prefer the term “Reformed” myself. But Spurgeon is not one to quote on this subject. Late in his life he became bitter over what was called the Baptist Downgrade Movement, and he got rather very narrow-minded. By his later terms, very few of us would be Christians today!
All of the Church Fathers you quote, and note I am pretty well read in many of the Church Fathers myself. I like Augustine certainly, but also Tertullian is another one of my favorites! But the point is, their statements toward Rome, were not the Roman Church, but the evil of the Roman empire!
–1689 London Baptist Confession
4._____ The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither 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; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )
http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc26.html
–Westminster 1646:
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.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html
–”The Necessity of Reforming the Church” (Selected Works of John Calvin, Volume 1, part 1, Tracts, Baker: 1983), Calvin says, “I deny that See (the Roman Catholic’s throne of authority: BLG) to be Apostolical, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostasy — I deny him to be the Vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist…” (pp. 219, 220).
–”Against the Roman Papacy; an Institution of the Devil.” Luther began the holy tirade thus:
“The Most Hellish Father, Saint Paul III, in his supposed capacity as the bishop of the Roman church…” (Luther’s Works, Fortress Press, Volume 41, pg 263). In that treatise he says that the pope is “the head of the accursed church of all the worst scoundrels on earth, a vicar of the devil, an enemy of God, an adversary of Christ, a destroyer of Christ’s churches, a teacher of lies… a brothel-keeper over all brothel-keepers and all vermin, even that which cannot be named; an Antichrist…” (ibid., page 357-358).
As far as the early church writers quotes…please read them in context a little closer after you read Pius IX quote. You have misunderstood the point they are making.
–1689 London Baptist Confession
4._____ The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither 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; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )
–Westminster 1646:
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 Necessity of Reforming the Church” (Selected Works of John Calvin, Volume 1, part 1, Tracts, Baker: 1983), Calvin says, “I deny that See (the Roman Catholic’s throne of authority: BLG) to be Apostolical, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostasy — I deny him to be the Vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist…” (pp. 219, 220).
–”Against the Roman Papacy; an Institution of the Devil.” Luther began the holy tirade thus:
“The Most Hellish Father, Saint Paul III, in his supposed capacity as the bishop of the Roman church…” (Luther’s Works, Fortress Press, Volume 41, pg 263). In that treatise he says that the pope is “the head of the accursed church of all the worst scoundrels on earth, a vicar of the devil, an enemy of God, an adversary of Christ, a destroyer of Christ’s churches, a teacher of lies… a brothel-keeper over all brothel-keepers and all vermin, even that which cannot be named; an Antichrist…” (ibid., page 357-358).
Indeed as an Anglican priest/presbyter, I follow the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles, and I like the earlier Irish Articles 1615, save of course as I have written that the papacy is the AntiChrist, as I noted by Melanchton too, when they met for the Schmalkald Articles, 1536. Melanchton said he could accept the pope as the bishop of Rome itself, but nothing more. As I said, I am a certain Reformed Christian. Again, I know all about Luther’s position, he was of course the great living hammer against the RCC in his time. But this is certainly not the 16th century! And for me at least, to see Rome in the very same light as then, would be a great mistake. There has been centuries of Christian life since those days thank God! Though again, I am not on friendly terms with the papacy, and do not accept the papal claims. But I am not one that will call the pope Antichrist! (1 John 2: 22-23 ; 4: 1-3) When we look at the Roman Church from these verses, we can see that Rome does not deny the Incarnation of Christ, nor the Father and the Son. In fact the RCC teaches both the Incarnation and the great Trinity of God! (1 John 1: 1-3 ; 4: 13-14, etc.)
And btw, I really love the man Luther, i.e. Dr, Martin Luther! But just like Calvin, or any man, he is not infallible! Note as I said, I did my D. Phil. on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross, back in the mid 90′s. Now Luther’s Doctrine of the Cross, there is a thing of beauty!
Antichrist= in the place of, in the room of…instead of Christ.
“We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty.” — Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894.
“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” — Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous.”
“We confess that the Pope has power of changing Scripture and of adding to it, and taking from it, according to his will.” Roman Catholic Confessions for Protestants Oath, Article XI, (Confessio Romano-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice praescripta te proposita, editi a Streitwolf), as recorded in Congressional Record of the U.S.A., House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913.
“Remember and understand well that where Peter is, there is the Church; that those who refuse to associate in communion with the Chair of Peter belong to Antichrist, not to Christ. He who would separate himself from the Roman Pontiff has no further bond with Christ.” — Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, quoted in “Acts of Leo XIII: Supreme Pontiff”, Rome: Vatican Press, 1896, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: “The Book of Christians”, Chapter 4: “There is No Allegiance to Christ Without Submission to the Pope”)
“We the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, humbly offer you our warmest congratulations on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of your ordination to the priesthood… our thoughts go back to that great event fifty years ago by which your Holiness was taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, was made a minister of Christ and a dispenser of His mysteries, received power over the real and mystical body of our Saviour and became a mediator between God and man – another Christ.” Address to Pope Pius Xll in 1949:-
Why were our reformers and proto-protestants burned? John Rogers, John Hooper, Rowland Taylor, Robert Ferrar, John Bradford, Nicholas Ridley, John Philpot, Thomas Crawler, Tyndale, John Huss…because they would bow to that hellish doctrine that the body and blood of Christ were really present in the eucharist. This is no small issue. The RCC has put a piece of bread in place of Christ. They say their priests forgive sins and get their authority from Jesus Christ to do it. They say that Mary is the intermediate to Christ. They say a sprinke of water saves you among other things. Pray to the dead, pay to get out of purgatory, pray for the dead, venerate the angels, speak in a language that you’re congregation can’t understand, add billions and billions of pages to the Bible and call it covenants, creeds, catechisms…but certainly not adding to scripture. Don’t eat, don’t touch, don’t marry, adore the wafer, wear a scapular, only give your congregation the bread, but not the wine…and yet, the blood is what atones for sin…tradition has equal authority to scripture, infallibility of the Pope when it comes to matters of faith and morals. lol. That’s a good one.
Proclaim Mary as the mother of the church, priest have the power to bring Christ down from heaven…etc etc etc. It’s too bad that even pastors today deny what so many others died for and try to convince others of their error. Sacralist Constantinianism…How devilish does one have to be to be considered an enemy of Christ?????
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: “We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God.” (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)
The Lateran Council addressing Pope Julius II in an oration delivered by Marcellus said: “Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth.” (Council Edition. Colm. Agrip. 1618)
Pope Nicholas said of himself: “I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)
The RC New York catechism states: “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.”
The title “Lord God the Pope” – these words appeared in the Canon Law of Rome. “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.” (The Gloss extravagances of Pope John XXII Cum. Inter, tit XIV Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685)
Father A. Pereira acknowledged: “It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title “Lord God the Pope” for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII.”
Pope Nicholas I declared that “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man.” (Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)
“I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.” (Sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, Tablet Oct 9, 1864)
Prompta Bibliothea Canonica Juridicia Moralis Theologica appearing in the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume VI, pp. 25-29, “The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted, that he is not a mere man, but as it were, God and the Vicar of God. The Pope is, as it were, God on earth, chief king of kings, having plentitude of power.”
“Seek where you will, through heaven and earth, and you will find but one created being who can forgive the sinner…That extraordinary being is the priest the Catholic priest.” — Michael Muller, The Catholic Priest, page 78.
“To pardon a single sin requires all the omnipotence of God…The Jews justly said: ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ But what only GOD can do by His omnipotence, the PRIEST can ALSO do by saying ‘Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis’ [I absolve you from your sin].” — Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, pages 34-35.
—-Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) (Anglican): “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.”
–English Presbyterian, Richard Baxter (1615-1691), began his answer to the question, “Is the Pope the Antichrist?” with this: “If he is not, then he has the bad luck to look so much like him.”
–Reinerius Saccho (died 1259), a Roman Catholic who wrote two reports for the Inquisition, Summa de Catharis et Pauperibus de Lugduno (roughly) “Of the Sects of Modern Heretics” (1254)] States that the Waldensians believed that “the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse”. That the Pope is the head of all errors.
–The first of the twenty-five articles of the Lollards from 1388 is:
The first, that this Pope Urban the Sixth hath not the power of Saint Peter in earth, but they affirm him to be son of Anti-christ, and that no true pope was from the line of Silvester pope.
–Martin Luther (1483–1546) (Lutheran): “Luther … proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy … And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror seized their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome.”
Based on prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520).
–John Calvin (1509–1564) (Presbyterian): “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt… I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.”
–John Knox (1505–1572) (Scotch Presbyterian) concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.”
–Roger Williams (1603–1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as “the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself…speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2).”
–John Wesley (1703–1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped…claiming the highest power, and highest honour…claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.”
–A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.”
–The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume “Magdeburg Centuries” to discredit the papacy and identify the pope as the Antichrist. The fifth round of talks in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue notes,
In calling the pope the “antichrist,” the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the “antichrist” when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.
–Smalcald Articles, Article four (1537)
…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. 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… 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… 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. 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…
–Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537)
…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: 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…
–National Covenant of 1580
…And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine…
–In 1754, John Wesley published his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, which is currently an official Doctrinal Standard of the United Methodist Church. In his notes on Revelation chapter 13, he commented,
“The whole succession of Popes from Gregory VII. are undoubtedly antichrist. 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. This individual person, as Pope, is the seventh head of the beast; as the man of sin, he is the eighth, or the beast himself.”
–Confessional Lutheran church bodies, such as the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Church of the Lutheran Confession teach that the Roman papacy or office of the pope is the Antichrist, including this article of faith as part of a quia rather than quatenus subscription to the Book of Concord. In 1932 the LCMS adopted A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod. Statement 43, Of the Antichrist:
43. 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. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)
In 1959 the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) formally issued its Statement on the Antichrist, a doctrinal statement that declared, “we reaffirm the statement of the Lutheran Confessions, that ‘the Pope is the very Antichrist’”.
It was very interesting to read all these grandiose claims, Dawn. I once read something along the lines that one had to submit his mind and will to the pope–cannot remember where that was.
Dawn-thanks for posting these. I hope irishanglican responds. I would like to see what he thinks of these statements while regarding the term antichrist.
Hi Sue–always enjoy reading here.
God bless sister.
First, we all know that the majority of the Reformation Fathers saw that the papacy was antichristian, and some like Luther and Calvin saw the Pope himself as the Antichirst. And I myself would agree that many of the popes acted in antichristian ways, but just like Melanchton not all saw the papacy as fully Antichrist. We can look in the 16th century itself, and can see many churches besides Rome acting in many antichristian ways. Killing heretics was something that Rome was not alone on, as we know with Geneva, Calvin and the death of poor Servetus. (Yes, he was a heretic, but did he deserve death & burning? I think not. But that was the way of it in the 16th century!) Btw, even today, we can note the “hatred” toward Roman Catholics and Rome! And our Lord surely spoke against “hating” anything, but sin and the devil! The old saying comes to mind, ‘hate the sin, but not the sinner’. And btw, let me state right here and now, how much I hate the sexual sins of many in the Catholic Church priesthood! As I have written, this is surely the great papal sin of our time! Funny, I don’t hear that much about that on this blog?
Concerning all of these said quotes, yes indeed we know that the RCC and the papacy has not always been correct, and I myself do not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope (1870). Btw, we should note here that John Henry Newman, advised against voting for it! And as we know historically some did not, and even left, note the so-called Old Catholics (Utrecht, Dutch). (It would be nice if some here did some historical study, besides just seeks to blast Rome!)
I am not here to defend Rome or Catholicism, but I am one like Melanchton, that sees that biblically speaking we simply cannot put the whole of the papacy in the place of The Antichrist. Not when the RCC teaches the Incarnation, virgin birth, the deity of Christ (God & Man in One Person), the Trinity of God, etc. I have noted no one here being able to deny Rome this! As I have quoted in the Holy Scripture from 1 John, etc.
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Philipp_Melanchthon
For those that care! *Note, theologically, and certainly on the Doctrines of Grace, me and old Phil Melanchthon would not agree! But he is still a Christian brother!
“(It would be nice if some here did some historical study, besides just seeks to blast Rome!)”
I for one am not “blasting” Rome–if your comment was intended for me. What do you mean by blasting? Nor was Dawn—it’s their own words in quotes…they are blasting themselves.
“By divine will, unity demands obedience to lawful authority in the Church. Because the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church and has the specific obligation to ensure unity of faith, obedience to him is an act of the will required of the Catholic faithful. Such obedience expresses the faith by which we are saved.”
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=115
“Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2G.HTM
Submission of intellect. Does Christ require us to give that to another man? Sounds rather cult-like.
I gladly give it to Jesus Christ….but not to someone in the place of Him…supposedly.
One more thought–realizing we are not in the 16th century anymore…has there been changes, denials, apologies for the grandiose claims Dawn found if they are not to be believed for this current time? If not…are they still to be believed by Catholics?
“Pontifix Maximus is a papal title meaning in Latin “chief bridge maker” between earth and heaven. However, Jesus Christ is the only One who can claim this title because “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6. This was a title of the Roman Caesars and of the Roman Emperors of paganism.”
Is it not true that pontificus maximus is engraved on a golden door at the Vatican?
It seems so clear to me that when you substitute the Rock of Jesus for Peter and the papal lines, what you are left with is the man of sin.
“We can look in the 16th century itself, and can see many churches besides Rome acting in many antichristian ways. Killing heretics was something that Rome was not alone on, as we know with Geneva, Calvin and the death of poor Servetus.”
Agreed –obviously. How is acting “antichristian” the same as antichrist….which means acting in the place or stead of Christ? Acting in “unchristian ways” does not = antichrist.
“I am not here to defend Rome or Catholicism, but I am one like Melanchton, that sees that biblically speaking we simply cannot put the whole of the papacy in the place of The Antichrist. Not when the RCC teaches the Incarnation, virgin birth, the deity of Christ (God & Man in One Person), the Trinity of God, etc. I have noted no one here being able to deny Rome this! As I have quoted in the Holy Scripture from 1 John, etc.”
Does antichrist mean an enemy of Christ? Not in my understanding.
“In place of” would not mean the pope would have to deny orthodox truths. I have no way of knowing if the pope is THE antichrist. It seems to me the claims made regarding the office of pope by their own documents does insist on certain titles that belong to Jesus alone.
imo
Note the EO or the Eastern Orthodox teach and believe that Christians can receive “deification”, or become in the “likeness” of God, even in this life somewhat, and certainly in the next, this is their doctrine of “theosis”. Does this mean that they are teaching that Christians become GOD? No certainly not! But that we become by grace & glory…deiform. And most good Roman Catholic theologians would teach that the Pope is the visible head of Christ on earth, i.e. in the so-called “seat” of St. Peter. Note, I do not share this, but is not in itself claiming to be “Christ” Himself, but the so-called “vicar” and leader and head of Christ on earth. Again, this is the doctrine of the papacy, and I myself reject it! But, on the theological surface, it is not Antichrist. Can it get there? Yes, in some ways, but is it the absolute doctrine and teaching of the RCC, that the mere reign of any pope is fully “Christ”? Not again by even the Roman definition of the “Chair of Peter”. As the Pope supposedly can only speak “ex cathedra”, when he speaks in the so-called “finality”, on faith and morals. Which has only been twice, once in the 19th century, 1858, and then once in the 20th,1950. And note again, I myself don’t believe or accept this! I am not even close here!
“Note, I do not share this, but is not in itself claiming to be “Christ” Himself, but the so-called “vicar” and leader and head of Christ on earth. Again, this is the doctrine of the papacy, and I myself reject it!”
I understand what you are saying. I do not know if the popes themselves currently teach that they are indeed “Christ Himself” on earth…that would not be wise…(although I have read some statements from some cardinals and bishops and so forth that have all but said
the pope is Jesus Christ on earth), but simply because the popes may not currently declare themselves to be “Christ Himself” does not mean they do not view themselves as “in the place of Jesus Christ”– as in salvation is through them.
No the pope would not say he is “fully Christ” (at least I hope not)…but why would he have to hold to this belief of being “fully Christ” to be considered “in the place of Christ?” Does “in the place of” automatically assume “identical with?”
You will know them by their fruits…
Indeed that is speaking of individuals and people. We all have to ask “ourselves” what kind of “fruit” do I present? And do I live within the Spirit/spirit of Christ?
Hey sister Diane,
You are correct that the church teaches you must submit your full will and intellect to the Roman Poniff.
Dear Robert,
Jesus left us the Holy Spirit to take His place in His physical presence. The church says He is present in bread in the tabernacle and that the ” Holy Father” takes His place on earth. How much more blasphemous can you get?
blah blah blah about only being infallible in faith and morals. They lie to the people.
Sue dar’lin..
I believe myself in the so-called “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, i.e. more like Luther (not Lutheran). And I too don’t use or like the term “Holy Father”. Note, the term “Father”, which I use as an Anglican priest/presbyter, is simply a term of being a shepherd or pastor. Note too, Paul uses the term himself, of his spiritual ministry and service “in Christ”, (1 Cor. 4:15 / Rom. 15: 16).
And whether ya like it or not, I have given, in basic, the Roman Catholic position on the pope. Sure man lie, and many “emergents” and other Protestants do also! We live in a sinful, fallen world. And the Church is always a Pilgrim Body here!
I believe He is present in spirit during communion, but not “IN” the bread to be eaten, and traveling down the digestive tract to be expelled.
“In, above and around” the elements.. It is a sacramental (mystical) reality. But in faith we partake of Christ! The churches that don’t see and celebrate the sacramental life of Christ, both ‘Word & Sacrament’, are poorer for this loss!
So how does this work? Jesus, in His glorified body is seated at the Right hand. Then, during mass, He comes off the throne into a piece of bread. If there is one incarnation, and it’s at the throne, how is it in a million tabernacles and wafers? Then there are millions of incarnations.
Well for the so-called “Luther” guys like myself, the so-called doctrine of “consubstantiation” comes in… in theology this is simply: the doctrine that the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist exists, after consecration, side by side with the substance of the body and blood of Christ but not changed into it. But again, we should not press this either, but simply and profoundly allow for God’s mystery! For myself, both “Presence” and “Sacrifice” are both areas of “mystery” which ultimately defy definition, as in this grand Sacrament!
The RCC says the pope is above every king, ruler and government and can not be judged by anyone since he is God’s replacement.???? There is no middle ground here.
The RCC today at least, does not use such language. Ya might want to read some of the encyclicals of pope John Paul I, on these subjects. I dare ya!
Again I am not defending the Catholic Church, but just seeking to be honest, by todays statements themselves!
You forget, I studied at Franciscan University. Language may change, dogma, and doctrine remains the same…along with the Office of Inquisition.
YOU are just not going to give an inch are ya?
Well, as I said, we get to lay it all at the Bema-Seat of Christ!
Gotta run dear!
I’ve got that stubborn Irish gene I guess!
As YOU do. LOL.
Blessings and peace brother.
Yes, lov were “Irish”!
Off to wash me car… I’ll be back later. And blessing to you, just think we have to put up with each other for eternity!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-other-denominations-not-true-churches/
So you worship the bread then?
Sue: No not at all! We, and I, have no ‘reserve sacrament’, but in the very action of the Eucharist we do “worship” the Christ Who is present! But again, I like the terms: “In, Above and Around” the elements, and altar. Yeah, I see the “Table” of the Lord as some kind of Altar! Though certainly no “Roman Catholic” altar. See Luther’s doctrine here. Some people have said or asked, why are you not a Lutheran? And I say, because “Luther” was not as Lutheran, as really Calvin, was not a Calvinist, at least in the strict sense.
But I do love many of my Lutheran friends, and have been able to preach the Word to a some of them, at their Churches, when invited. I love to preach the Word! 
Do you believe at your mass (if you call it that) you are offering a sacrifice?
my other thought is this: If we as believers have God in us, the 3nd person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, we are full of Him. Why do you need more God by eating flesh? I already have Him.
We call it Holy Communion, Holy Eucharist, etc. But not “Mass”. And no, there is no “offering” of sacrifice by me, but the efficacy of Christ’s death and sacrifice is certainly “present”, in the bread & wine, which is somehow the ‘body & blood’ of Christ! And yet, Christ is always Risen, so He is also present there too! Of course this is mystical, spiritual.. but somehow very real! Note some of the Charles Wesley hymns for the Holy Eucharist, just grand!
Sue: Read, 1 Cor. 10:17, “partaking” is simply communing with Christ, as we “eat”. It is sweet “fellowship”! Spirit, mind, heart and our body, with Christ!
I read through the Luther’s small catechism…it states
It is the true body and blood of our Lords Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink……These words, given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins show us that in the sacrament forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. Certainly not just eating and drinking do these things, but the words written here: Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. These words, along with the bodily eating and drinking, are the main thing in the Sacrament. Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: forgiveness of sins.
http://www.lutheran.co.uk/docs/Small%20Catechism.pdf
On baptism, he says that:
Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word…it works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promised of God declare. Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a live giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit….(from the same link of the little catechism)
and of confession he says:
” What is confession? Confession has two parts. First, that we confess our sins, and second that we receive absolution, that is , forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself, not doubting, but firmly believing that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven. ” (same link as given above)
Indeed for Luther, it was both ‘Word & Sacrament’! It is the same in the classic Anglican Communion (Church). I wonder Dawn if you have read any of the Irish Articles 1615, or the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles? Note the Irish Articles were written by the Anglican Archbishop James Ussher. They are perhaps my favorite Reformed Creed.
Luther’s Translation of the Bible into German..
http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html
No, but it looks like I should. i didn’t realize Luther thought pastors could forgive sins. Just learned that today. Do you get to forgive sins too? I’m not being nasty, just curious is all.
@Dawn,
Luther’s idea of confession was not even close to Rome’s, there is no so-called “absolution” by Luther or the minister one on one, but simply bringing the person to the connection of the Gospel and Christ, and of course from there, is the so-called forgiveness, or perhaps the “word” absolution of sin used. But the forgiveness is alone Gods In Christ!
Yes, I have some people, usually former Roman Catholics that ask for confession, but not always former RC’s. And I use the same kind of model that Luther used and taught.
Interesting Dawn. The bible relates coming to Him and believing in Him, as eating and drinking.
The Word is our ‘food’. The bread that came down from heaven was not a loaf falling from the sky or a baked good.
He is the Word made flesh. We eat these words as our spiritual nourishment as we read and feed on scripture.
Even John in the book of Revelation was told to eat the parchment and it was bitter and sweet in his mouth.
Taste and See the goodness of the Lord, does not mean we take a bite out of his arm..
…just my thoughts.
I agree with your thoughts.
Can I amen too?
Man does NOT live on bread alone, but every WORD out of the mouth of God.
Contrary to the Catholic theology, which says you must eat flesh to live…
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, about the only good thing to come out of the reformation was the Bible in the hands of the common folk. But even then we have to be careful because men have agendas. But knowledge has increased and it’s not so easy for the clergy to have their way with folks anymore. We can double check these mens words with scripture, and we can even double check from translation to translation, greek and hebrew to english…it something seems off and we care to look, we can find the answers. Here is an example.
http://www.firefromheaven.net/main/great-ecclesiastical-conspiracy.html#Chapter%202
I would recommend “In The Beginning”, a book about the KJV, etc., by Alister McGrath. But, I am certainly not a KJV only guy! I use and like many translations, but perhaps my favorite right now is the ESV. Note they have had a light update on the ESV, 2011. Myself, I seem to favor the early 2001 ESV.
lol. Yes. The book the Great Ecclesiatical Conspiracy recommends that book as well…
I tend to read the KJV, the NASB, the ESV and Young’s literal with my e-sword program open. Sometimes, if I need a bible for dummies, I will look at the New Century Version, but I compare them all to eachother.
You gotta understand Robert, you’re talking to what would most closely be described as a reformed (in that I believe the 5 points of Calvinism…other than that, the word reformed makes me cringe) Baptist…yet, there are things in the Baptist church that make me cringe such as church membership and closed communion, dispensational theology, pre-millenialism etc.) which we don’t need to talk about or anything, I just want you to understand why I don’t agree with so much of what you say. I don’t think I understand scripture the way alot of the sacralist constintinian denominations do. I hold to freedom on conscience and the complete separation of church and state. Life would certainly be easier if I could just…not push the subjects as you say..but God didn’t make me that way. So I am what I am by the grace of God and I trust that His finished work on the cross is what I need to be saved. He knew me before the foundation of the world. He called me out, saved me, and now sanctifies me. One day, I will be glorified. Until then…I do the best I can. Yet not I, but God in me…oh the tension.
@Dawn,
Thanks to share your perspective, we all come from some place. So you are, or are not a former RC?
Five Point Calvinist Baptist eh, well I do have a few friends in that place. One is a Brit, called Strict and Particular Baptist. Like old AW Pink. Yeah as a Reformed Anglican, I can use the moniker “Calvinist” myself, though I myself prefer the term “Reformed”. Since I am not a full fiver strictly. Have you ever read J.C. Ryle? He is, or was an Anglican Calvinist, though he too was not a full 5 guy.
Btw, I am a Historic Pre-Mill guy (Post-trib), and a certain “Biblical” Zionist. Not to many Anglican “priests” are in that place today!
I lived and taught in Israel in the late 90′s. And I also fought (Royal Marine) in Gulf War 1. We also had some Spl. Op’s with some Israeli’s. And yes, I am a British conservative, both biblically and politically.
I hope you get to check out the Irish Articles 1615, they are very close to where you are at, at least somewhat. I have them on my own blogroll.
I still read the KJV, hey am an old Brit (Anglo-Irish somewhat), but born I was in Dublin. I was educated theologically in England, and basically conservatively. But certainly as a padeo-baptist!
I am in the USA right now. As you mention, there is a profound tension in both Holy Scripture, and even in ourselves! We are always “sinful” beings even as regenerate, only in glory.. will we be glorified!
As I have been reading and seeing, the great doctrine of our ‘Union with Christ’, is just a much needed truth to be rediscovered, for here is also the great doctrine of Adoption!
Blessings In Christ!
Amen to that Dawn!
Sure Diane! xoxo
Goin’ to church kids, be back later. Love to you all.
Robert…no, not an ex-catholic, just surrounded by practicing and ex-catholics. We have a catholic church on every corner in this state and my brothers (2 of them) and my sister married catholics…all are ex-catholics now for the same reasons as Sue has expressed. Sue actually knew lots more than they did about all the political stuff. My family just knew something wasn’t right, and back then…I sure wasn’t gonna tell them. Shoot, I didn’t even know. That was around 15 years ago. All I knew was that God didn’t need no help.
I guess eschatology wise, I suppose you could call me some sort of historic amillenialist…in that I hold to a panoramic historic view of Revelation and I believe Jesus is ruling right now and when He comes again, that’s it. In other words, the millenial kingdom is in the here and now and started with the ascension of Jesus and the distribution of the Holy Spirit to believers. I believe Daniel 9 was fulfilled in Christ and the atonement. I find the idea of recapitulation fascinating but I know that when it comes to eschatology, we won’t know know anything until it’s all said and done. Till then, I just watch.
I don’t do politics and I don’t have a horse in the Israel race. In fact, I can not stand when people of “faith” try to take over the world for Jesus. Drives me BONKERS! So I guess you could say I don’t have any loyalty to tradition or any denomination to be honest with you. I was raised in the SBC…and no, I don’t believe baptists have a unbroken line to the apostles. I believe CHRISTIANS…only the saved have an unbroken line. Other than that…well I am what I am I guess. Not a good label to describe it I suppose. I’m conservative politically, but again, I don’t get caught up in it, though I used to be a hard core republican…even voted for cough cough…George W. The good thing about that is that ol’ Georgie made me understand that all politicians are just two sides of management working for the same corrupt corporation. These days, I’d rather vote for a pot smokin’ hippy. At least those guys are peaceful.
I try to stay out of religious discussions for the most part (though that has not always been the case) and take the good and throw out the bad…by that I mean, if the scripture is silent, I don’t need some diatribe to tell me what God means when He doesn’t explain things to our liking. When scripture speaks, I believe what it says. Theological arguments often go no where. People believe what they believe…so be it. I’m not a fan of the Queen and ain’t a fan of the Pope, but since eschatology is such a fun subject, I like to know what those 2 are up to.
I’m a cessasionist and most folk would call me rather dry in that aspect. Not that I mean that miracles don’t exist…I just believe they are few and far between.
I believe in the doctrines of grace and believers baptism. I believe baptism and the Lord’s supper are symbolic celebrations and acts of obedience but have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. I believe there are christians everywhere because God saves who He will save and technically, all Has already been done in the non-temporal realm…it’s just a matter of completing it in this time-space continuim. I was saved, am saved and am being saved. Those christians believe the truth of who Christ is and what he did and who they are and what they deserve, but as we see from Books like Corinthians…and the letters to the 7 churches, christians are a mess and believe all sorts of interesting things. God takes us all at His pace and does what He pleases with us and He matures us. If He wills, He takes us out of those places that don’t suit Him.
Yes, I do read Ryle and I appreciate him very much on some things…but as you can imagine, not so much on others. Infact, the last post I did on my blog was….Ryle.
I have a doctorate in pharmacy with a specialty in pediatric pharmacotherapy, but quit practicing for money last January. I volunteer at the state board these days and am a house wife the other 6 days of the week. No kids, but lots of dogs and cats. My husband is a nurse. Oh, I’m a mutt, have no idea what my background is other than a mix of scottish, english, french, cherokee. and potawatomi indian. A mutt in the truest since of the word. My husband is russian/german. I seem to be the stubborn one between us two. He’s a good man for loving and putting up with me.
So…now I know a little about you, and you know a little about me….and now it’s time to go out to eat.
Will take more later God willing.
Dawn Marie,
Thanks to share, life is always good for the Christian who sees and believes in the Doctrines of Grace! Though sadly I think the Free World, Amercia, the Brits, etc., are moving quickly away from almost any past understanding of the Judeo-Christian world-view! Indeed the Queen and the British monarchy are nothing without the Judeo-Christian world-view, and so both are dying! And the Papacy has also lost the reigns of enacting her own Roman Catholic world-view, the shame of the moral and sexual problems of the priesthood are like a spiritual cancer and plague! The West is simply dying! Not to mention our inability to deal with Islam. Very sad! Sometimes I wonder if we will end with a wimper, rather than any kind of a fight? Judaism and Christianity will not survive the 21st century, that seems like a sure statement! But surely Modern Israel will be central in any Eschatological!
Thankfully however, GOD is sovereign! And HE alone knows where He is taking His creation, yet still, even in this hour is the Salvation History of God, and the Covenant/covenants of God! (Rom. 11: 36)
Amen Trevor! Totally agree.
No protestant christian will ever join the false prophet of the anti-christ. Their paganism and idolatry will be their doom. I will not pray to or worship or bow down to Astarte, the Queen of Heaven or bow down to the Pope in his Priesthood of Dagon robe and hat or any of his idols. I have only one King and he is Yeshua ha Meshiach the King of kings, the Adonai.
2 Cor. 11:1- 4. The gospel from Rome is not the gospel of the Bible.
The christ of is not Rome is not the Christ of the Bible. And lastly the spirit of Rome is not the Holy Spirit of the Bible.
Indeed, the gosepl of Rome is straight from the mouth of Satan and most catholics live their entire lives never realising this.
Correcting line 2: The christ of Rome is not the Christ of the Bible.