The Anti-Christ?


I know this is old news to ya’ll but, I am still trying to work this out. A gentleman Told me that the Pope is the Anti-Christ from Revelation saying:

That in Rev. 17 that the woman arrayed with all these jewls and wonders is the Pope of Papal Rome from his wealth.
That The Bobylon from v.5 is Rome scince John was using the same hidden laungauge that Peter used in 1 Peter 5:13 which the Catholic Church uses to show that Peter was in Rome which sets on 7 hills (Rev. 17:9) which is where The Papal states layed at the time.
And during Papal Power, The Catholic Church killed a bunch of Jesus saints and Martyrs v. 6
And being that the same Anti-Christ organization and person (pope) are still in continuation. To-da the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ.

How would I rebutle this? Thanks and God bless.


[quote=Montie Claunch]I know this is old news to ya’ll but, I am still trying to work this out. A gentleman Told me that the Pope is the Anti-Christ from Revelation saying:

How would I rebutle this? Thanks and God bless.

Well the ‘woman arrayed with jewels’ could just as equally be Elizabeth I of England, who played a pivotal role in establishing the Protestant Church in that country - she was known for her love of finery, and also burned her fair share of Catholics at the stake, so they could equally be seen as martyrs! So is the Anglican Church still continuing today, under a different Queen Elizabeth of course.

Just ask them firstly why that passage has to be applied to a church? Could not the passage apply to some other social or political institution (such as a country - lots of them have been around since Biblical times and plenty of them have persecuted Christians too)?


The book of Revelation almost didn’t make it into the bible because its so difficult to understand. It is not a mere book of symbolic predictions. In fact, as far as I’ve read on the subject of the book, it speaks a lot more on the Church in Heaven. It also speaks about the persecution the Christians during the time period it was written in were going through and it speaks very, very little about the anti-Christ. In fact, I just did a bible search on the word, and the term antichrist isn’t used in Revelations. The term comes from the 2 letters of John, and its only used four times. I just did a search on the term on some online Protestant bibles including the King James Version and I get the same result.

1JN 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.

1JN 2:22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.

Since the Pope does not deny this, he is definetly not the antichrist.

1JN 4:3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.

2JN 1:7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist.


Also, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable

sin, is understood by some as calling the Holy profane.
What could be a larger way of doing this than calling the
Pope of the whole church the anti-christ?


As far as I’ve understood, the sin against the Holy Spirit is the refusal to accept God’s mercy and forgiveness usually accompanied by the belief that one does not need such forgiveness. It is the refusal or hardeness of heart that you choose not to allow the Holy Spirit to reside in your heart.


It was said above, but may have gotten lost in the longer post:



Hi Montie,

Are you truly someone who is in RCIA or are you just here to say things for the Seventh Day Adventists?

The information you seek is clearly available here

Yet a true Adventist or Jehovah’s Witness (remember they sprang from the same denomination) will not look at tracts- they will want to hear things from face to face conversation. Sort of what you are doing here.



"It is important for the Catholic apologist to have a good handle on what Scripture does and does not say regarding the Antichrist because the opponents of the Catholic faith have often depicted the pope as the Antichrist.

This was a psychological necessity for the early Protestant leaders because they were in the process of breaking away from what their contemporaries universally recognized as the authentic Church of Christ, governed by the authentic Vicar of Christ. Since breaking with such a body is inconceivable to any one determined to follow Christ’s will, it was necessary for Protestant leaders to deny that the Catholic Church and the pope were these things.

The recognition of the Catholic Church as the one Christ established was so strong—given its centuries of existence, its ubiquity in Europe, and the absence of any plausible rival in tracing its roots back to Christ—that it created severe cognitive dissonance that Protestant leaders had to find ways to overcome. “If it’s not the Bride of Christ then what is it? How can it be explained otherwise?” would be logical questions.

Protestant leaders cast about in Scripture for alternative explanations for a large, false religious system expected to exist during the Christian age. They chose the religious system associated with the beast from Revelation, whom they identified as the Antichrist. They further identified this religious system with the Whore of Babylon, who in Revelation is in contrast to the Church, the Bride of Christ.

They thus came to portray the Church as the Whore of Babylon and the pope as the beast/Antichrist. Only in such a way could breaking away from what everyone recognized as the true Church of Christ be psychologically justified.

Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, “The pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14).

The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and that son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God” (25:6).

The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture.

Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or any Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.

For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist. Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible.

Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.

Now that Protestantism has been in a state of separation from the Church for several centuries, psychological pressures have eased, and many Protestants today recognize the absurdity of the papal Antichrist theory and reject those portions of their confessional writings that endorse it.

This praiseworthy recognition provides the Catholic apologist with an opportunity to invite individuals to fundamentally reconsider the Protestant Reformation. If Protestants are prepared to admit that the pope is not the Antichrist and that the Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon, then the questions may be posed: “Then what are they? How can they be otherwise explained?”

Most Christians are and always have been members of the Catholic Church. The pope and the Catholic Church are too central to historic Christianity to be dismissed as simply an accident. They must have some part in God’s plan. But if they are not the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon, then the logical alternative is to recognize them as the Vicar of Christ and the Bride of Christ—the very realization that drove the early Reformers to the papal Antichrist theory. From “The Antichrist” - This Rock Magazine - James Akin


[quote=kleary]Hi Montie,

Are you truly someone who is in RCIA or are you just here to say things for the Seventh Day Adventists?


I am truly someone coverting to the faith. I have a small amount of SDA background (my aunt took me to an SDA church off and on for about 5 years or so). This is me just puting out what I have heard trying to get things straightened out (you know, Big descisin don’t want to screw up.) And I didn’t come up with the comfort of Big pappa Church being Christ’s church and beyond reproach and infall. ect. so I need to get this Monkey of my back and on the floor or I am going to be kind of ehh you know. And plus I would really like to answer these charges. Thanks for the answer though ken and God bless.


[quote=cheeto1]Also, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable

sin, is understood by some as calling the Holy profane.
What could be a larger way of doing this than calling the
Pope of the whole church the anti-christ?

As I understand it because its been defined this way on the “ask an apologist” forum, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is refusal to repent for a mortal sin and dying in this state. Given that, it doesn’t really matter if its “understood by some as calling the Holy profane.” I’m sorry, but that premise is ridiculous- how many people go through their lives never making a sacreligious comment or taking the Lord’s name in vain? I’d bet not that many. Probably a lot of those who do commit this sin always repent of it afterward, at least if they are faithful Catholics.
Are we to believe God would refuse to forgive these people? I think not.


Montie, this link will help out a lot: Scroll down for the topic about the Whore of Babylon, and what Revelation 17 actually alludes to.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit