The other day I was talking to a friend of mine and he asked me a question that I didn’t fully understand. he asked me “If the Pope were to announce that he was the second coming of christ, would you believe him?” my thoughts were centered on how ridiculous the question was and i didn’t really have time to answer because he then went on to inform me that most protestants (according to him) feel that the Anti-Christ is going to come from the catholic church because we have so many followers. He claims that at his church the pastor had been talking about it and mentioned that if the Pope was the Anti-Christ claiming to be Christ that the world would be doomed because Catholics would follow him. Please clear this all up for me…I’m sort of at a loss on how to reply. Many thanks
I know some protestants and fundamentalists say the Pope is the anti-Christ and the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. I believe that CA has tracts refuting this.
Here is one:
Here is an old Catechism refuting this tired Protestant calumny.
But even *if *a Pope claimed to be the Second Coming of Christ, faithful Catholics would not follow him and cafeteria/nominal/cultural Catholics don’t listen to the Pope anyway. And the rest of the world, well they attack everything he says. The Pope would therefore not a be good choice to lead away the masses…
Here’s the thing: the devil is unfortunately very smart. He manages to trick us over and over again. Some Protestants tend to think that they can outsmart the devil, but you can’t. The devil is smart enough that he’s not going to attack us where we are strongest, but where we are weakest. So if we’re all expecting him to come as a pope, he’ll more likely come as someone who attacks the pope and gains followers that way.
These are the same Protestants who think they’ve figured out that the end of the world is near because of the horrible world around us. But God said that it will be when we least expect it. So trying to figure out when it’s coming is a waste of time. And trying to out-think the devil is an equal waste of time.
oh. well i had never heard of such a thing in my life. this thought was completely new to me
Maybe he only understands his own rational… if that is the case answer with this.
Ask your friend to consider that the anti-christ could have already came from the Catholic Church. When he gives you that puzzled look start by listing, Henry VII, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Keep going until you hit the founder of his protestant church.
See what he says.
Hahaha! That made me laugh! Good one!
The next chance you get to meet with your protestant friend ask where in the Bible it says that the anti-christ is coming from the Catholic church.
Sounds to me like your friend is in a Sola Scriptura church. If that is the case, I would like to know how your friend’s pastor came to that awful conclusion.
The response will more than likely a citation or two from the Bible followed by an interpretation. There is nothing in ‘their’ Bible that (a) supports their anitchrist claim and (b) supports their method of reading and interpretation.
I cannot help but believe your protestant friend and pastor are loyal not to the Word of God but to L. Boettner’s book Roman Catholicism. This book is academically flawed but filled with the false research anti-Catholics like to use to denounce the Barque of Peter. You can find Roman Catholicism in Christian bookstores. The review and debunking of Boettner’s claims is found in a tract offered by Catholic.com: catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp
Sean, were you the guy/gal who used to post the geneology for each Protestant Church? If so, do you still have that list? Thankyou.
Oh, and once the OP has posited that it is possible that Luther Calvin and so on could have been the accused, then the OP can ask his people to look at the concept of the tree being known by its fruit. Then go into the fruit of the Reformation:
The Peasants War.
The peasants losing their rights and being reduced to serfdom.
The French Revolution.
Rampant Capitalism versus the Communist Revolution.
The subjugation of the First Nations in the Americas.
This is a typical reason why many non-Catholics think of Catholics will blindly follow whatever the Pope says. The pastor has shown his ignorance and lack of charity when giving such a silly example.
When the Church says that the Pope is correct in teaching moral and faith, the Church certainly knows that the teaching will never go against the teaching of Jesus.
Pastors such as one in this case must be carefull in teaching to those of his church and never give silly examples again.
I was on that thread and remember the list you speak of but it wasn’t me. I’ll look around for it for us both, it was a good list to use with our separtated brethen.
I don’t think so, but you might want to ask him that if Billy Graham were to claim that he was the second coming of Christ, would he follow him?
He might be offended, which he should be, because that comment is offensive, but also saying that about the Pope is offensive.
Plus you might want to explain to him what the “anti-christ” is, and show him that in the epistle of John, he said that many “anti-christs” have already come, those who deny Christ.
1 John 2:18-19 “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.”
1 John 2:22-23 “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
1 John 4:2-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”
2 John 1:7 “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
Ask him if maybe the “anti-christ” would be someone who would fool many Christians, and lead them from the true church.
Would these people think that they were following the true church?
Would these people think that the actual true church was false?
Would they think that the actual true church was teaching false doctrine, while they were teaching “true” doctrine, even though it was really false?
If he has agreed with most of these questions, then ask him if Martin Luther or the Protestant reformers could be the “anti-christ”, leading Christians away from the church Jesus established.
Again this might be offensive to him, but show him, that when he makes statements about a Pope being the anti-christ, even if he believes it, it is offensive.
Well for one the Pope is not leading anyone from Jesus’ established Church since that Church is the Catholic Church only. None of the Protestant churches have valid apostolic succession and they are only a product of the Reformation.
I have read many of the Encyclical of the Popes and they preached Jesus. The Anti-Christ is someone who is totally denies that Jesus is the Son of God, and denies the message of the Gospel. The Catholic Church has for 2,000 yrs preached the Gospel. So I don’t think Jesus Christ would break his promised “that the gates of hell shall not prevail against” His Church. If someone insist that the Anti-Christ will come from the Catholic Church, he finds himself at odds with Jesus Christ himself. Why?
Because Jesus established His Church upon Peter, the first Pope. “Upon this Rock I will build My Church.” (Matt 16:18). Jesus also promised that he will send the Holy Spirit to lead us to All truths. Also in 2 Tim 3:15, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the Church.
The Anti-Christ would not be a Christian period. He would have to be a non-believer. He would not be a Catholic Christian. He would either be an atheist, or some other non-believer.
Sure and while you are offending him, point to the John 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
(After Jesus taught that you must eat his flesh and drink his food, that his body and blood were true food and drink.)
Explain to him that you believe that the beast and the anti-Christ are those who deny the real presence in the eucharist.
Because in John 1:7 it say’s that they do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. And they left him in John 6:66 over the teaching of the Eucharist, and that 666 is the mark of the beast and you should use wisdom to figure out what the number means.
I would ask him to consider the career of Martin Luther, the man who refused the authority of the Pope, inveighed many profane calumnies against fellow Christians (including calling the Pope the Anti-Christ), called for the Jews to be driven out of Europe, incited and attained the slaughter of 100,000 German peasants, broke nuns out of a convent and married one, advocated for the theft of church property, argued with the Devil and conceded theological points to him by his own admission, and claimed to speak with the mouth of Christ.
Now, by your Protestant friend’s formulation, how would Luther NOT meet the definition of Anti-Christ?
(Please note I am not calling, insinuating, nor claiming that Luther was the Anti-Christ—I am merely applying the standard fundamentalists are applying to one of the Reformers).
I don’t mean to be “attacking” CA, and I am certainly not saying that I think Roman Catholicism will be the source of the anti-Christ, but I should point out that there are some fairly blatant errors in the link. Most obvious among these is…
He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome…
For those who are unclear as to why one can not “confuse” Rome with Vatican City, it’s because Vatican City (excluding it’s so-called “territories”) is wholly contained within Rome. The distinction between the two only came relatively recently (in comparison to the duration that Roman Catholicism has been headquartered there), due to the Lateran treaty.
Treating the two as separate, seems a matter of selective definition, rather than a matter of real separateness.
Additionally, the comparisons of “ancient Rome” to “Christian Rome” are silly, as we’re apparently talking about a geographic location in Revelation, rather than a culture. The city of Rome, whether run in a pagan or a Christian fashion, is still the city of Rome.