Why do some Protestant groups believe the Pope to be the Anti-Christ?

I was taught this when I was a fundamental Baptist.

So they can Justify themselves.

Luther and the Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic Papacy as the Antichrist for three main reasons: First, the Papacy claimed to speak with an authority—even infallibility—that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being ‘anti’ or ‘in place of’ Christ. Second, the Papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, making membership in a human organization a condition for salvation; finally, in emphasizing that faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, the Papacy undermined the very heart and center of the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone and comes to individuals through faith in Christ alone. In holding to each of these teachings, the Roman Catholic Papacy placed itself in clear opposition to the foundation of the Christian faith, and therefore in opposition to Christ himself.


Maybe they are also jealous of not having such a structuralized hierarchy :D:D:D:D (:rotfl:)

Well many Christian denominations have varying levels of structured hierarchy. I mean the Anglican/Episcopal Church’s structure essentially mirrors that of the Catholic Church just minus the Archbishop of Canterbury having the same level of authority over his peers that the pope has over his brother bishops.

As for why some Protestant sects teach that the Pope is the anti-christ, it’s a fairly limited scope of churches that teach something like that. And those that do tend to be on the extreme end of Protestantism. The same denominations that teach that the Catholic Church and Mainline Protestant denominations are all the whores of Babylon and the like.

What i think is this: many of them try to interpret the book of Revelation by their own understandings.

1 Like

No one wants to admit any flaws in their view of the world, so they demonize everyone elses views.

Simply put…

Gosh I am sure glad that none of these allegations are true!

“Allegations” one and two bear weight…number three is debatable.

Yeah well, simply put. Occam’s razor.

Most of us here are Catholic - maybe we should ask you, or you should ask Protestants? :shrug:

Perhaps because they have nothing much going on in their lives

Is it strange if I’m experiencing deja vu on this thread?

I guess you could really go either way, depending whether you want to hear fellow Catholics state why Protestants believe it, or whether you want to hear Protestants state why they believe it (or at least why they *believe *they believe it).

Only in the minds of those who do not understand Catholic Teaching.

I see what you did there. Non Catholics aren’t allowed to have actual reasons under certain circumstances, only ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Luther was dealing with a pope of the De Medici family. And Luther was a theologian.

He must have known the history of the papacy and many good popes prior to P Leo.

Non Catholics are allowed to have any understanding they would like to have. We, Catholics, would just like those understandings to be based in fact rather than fiction if they are using that understanding to attack or undermine Catholic teaching.

In theory I could claim an understanding your church teaches XYZ and post on web forums how bad your church is, when really your church teaches ABC and my lack of understanding of that teaching is the problem, not your church teaching. Does that make sense?

1 Like

Undoubtedly. But he was also a theologian in an era where the Leo and his predecessors going back to at least Sixtus IV were terribly corrupt and even depraved. There hadn’t been a “good” pope in far too many years before Luther came along. It’s no surprise he thought the papacy had lost its way, it had at the time.

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