Thread: Do You Believe the Papacy to be the Anti-Christ?

Originally Posted by puritanpilgrim
Quote:
I hold to the confessions

I just believe the Bible.

And yet you held to a confession when you joined this board.

We cannot "just" believe the Bible as theology is not stated in a format that does not require interpretation, and in that interpretation we are not sovereign, the Church is, and the Church's interpretation is contained in the confessions.

i·ro·ny (ī'rə-nē, ī'ər-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. i·ro·nies


The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
Dramatic irony.
Socratic irony.

see also:

jest
   /dʒɛst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jest] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a joke or witty remark; witticism.
2. a bantering remark; a piece of good-natured ridicule; taunt.
3. sport or fun: to speak half in jest, half in earnest.
4. the object of laughter, sport, or mockery; laughing-stock.
5. Obsolete. an exploit. Compare gest.
–verb (used without object) 6. to speak in a playful, humorous, or facetious way; joke.
7. to speak or act in mere sport, rather than in earnest; trifle (often fol. by with): Please don't jest with me.
8. to utter derisive speeches; gibe or scoff.
–verb (used with object) 9. to deride or joke at; banter.

see also:


joke
   /dʒoʊk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [johk] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, joked, jok⋅ing.
–noun 1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.
2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.
3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.
4. something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class.
5. practical joke.
–verb (used without object) 6. to speak or act in a playful or merry way: He was always joking with us.
7. to say something in fun or teasing rather than in earnest; be facetious: He didn't really mean it, he was only joking.
–verb (used with object) 8. to subject to jokes; make fun of; tease.
9. to obtain by joking: The comedian joked coins from the audience.

Originally Posted by Contra Marcion

I subscribe to every word of the WCF as adopted by my denomination (OPC). We accept the amended version, i.e., the "non-Antichrist" version. Are you saying that the entire OPC in in violation of the WCF? (Please tell me you're not!)

To ask it another way, if the elders of my church have given me a book of standards (WCF, WLC, WSC, BCO), and those standards NOWHERE state that the Pope is the Antichrist, must I believe such a thing anyway to remain confessional, in your view?

-----Added 2/24/2009 at 03:45:42 EST-----

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.

Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.

I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:

SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view

In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.

Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”

The though was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:

To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ...

It appears pastor Farrell beat me to my point in the beginning of his post. Thank you, sir.

Are any revisions acceptable? What if a large group of Brazilians got together and revised the WCF further and removed the affirmation of the doctrines of grace? Would we consider them truly confessional? It may be said that eschatology is not as central as the doctrines of grace but eschatology was central enough for the divines to include it in their confession. How can we change their confession and still say we truly adhere to the confession?

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.

Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.

I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:

SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view

In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.

Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”

The though was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:

To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ...

The sermon by Rev. Silversides is really good. I am going to listen again and take notes. He fully exegetes the Thessalonians passage verse by verse. I highly recommend it.

I voted that the Scripture does not name the pope as the antichrist, but on the other hand, it doesn't say the pope isn't an antichrist (which he obviously is, as the "vicar" of Christ).

anti = "in the place of"

Originally Posted by lynnie

Ummm....


I appreciate you posting this as I now realize I have a disagreement with the WCF here. I will look forward to reading the replies.

It's not in the current PCA or OPC versions - so you are safe.

Of course, we still don't allow marriage with Papists.

There is nowhere in Scripture that definitively points out who will be the antichrist; its a guessing game at best. He may be in the world and perhaps even in public office right now, but I don't believe that even the antichrist will know who he is until he comes to power.

OK I voted maybe, but I will have to change it to Yes,,,,, I agree with WCF and the 1689BCF

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Simple Question.

(Like anything on the PB could be simple )

Westminster Confession (1646)

25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

26.4. 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.

The Confessions are just wrong on this point. Since that clause has been excised from our constitution, I don't have to take an exception. Cool Beans.

20 The Identification of the Man of Sin
Rev. Ken Gentry • 41 min.
GPTS & Mt. Olive 500+ Play! | MP3

TUE 12/07/2004
Special Meeting

Nero

Hey why isn't there an option for Nicolae Carpathia. hahaha just kidding.

The confession do not actually say that the pope is the antichrist though do they, they say he is 'that antichrist.' the 'anti' is the greek root, not the latin, it means subsititue, and yes the papacy is a substitute christ. It may be dangerous, and in some situations unhelpful to designate a perticular pope as 'the antichrist', but the office certain is an antichrist.

Y'all have it wrong. David Hasselhoff is the antichrist.

David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist


Theognome

The site's exegesis is impressive. I may have to rethink my eschatology.

I believe that there are many antichrists e.g.Gnosticism, JWs, etc, but that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

Patrick Fairbairn has a very good discussion of this in his "Interpretation of Prophecy". An antichrist must look "Christian" while denying the fundamental saving realities of Christianity. This would make Liberalism and some of what passes for Evangelicalism today antichristian. But Islam, Buddhism, Communism, Hinduism, Fascism, Judaism, etc,etc aren't antichrists.

Statist persecution by Islamic, Communist, Fascist and now democratic states, would correspond to the return of the first beast of Revelation, typified by pagan Rome and Nero. The first beast -statist persecution - is not to be confused with the/an antichrist, but historically and in Revelation they do co-operate.

The second beast from the earth (false prophet) would certainly include the Papacy and other antichrists. These antichrists produce the compromised church (Eastern Orthodox, Liberal and Roman Catholic, etc, etc) which is pictured by the Babylonian Harlot.

That's my tuppence-worth on a complicated subject. Please take it wth a pinch of salt, and don't be too dogmatic, as I do.

Originally Posted by Honor

that's a whole other ... maybe tomorrow I can write a s/o thread about it... for now if you just wikki him... it's enough to give you the creeps

I just read his bio. I don't get it. Is it because he's held UN and EU posts?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

So are the confessions then wrong?

In this case, yes. IMO

-----Added 5/15/2009 at 01:21:38 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I need to ask again, "Are the present Confessions wrong in this area?" and if you thank that they are, can you be "Confessional?"

All those who are responding "no" or "I don't know" that hold elder positions, have you voiced this area of disagreement with the Confession?

As I said before, since the PCA removed this phrase from the Confessions, there is no exception to declare.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

Are any revisions acceptable? What if a large group of Brazilians got together and revised the WCF further and removed the affirmation of the doctrines of grace? Would we consider them truly confessional? It may be said that eschatology is not as central as the doctrines of grace but eschatology was central enough for the divines to include it in their confession. How can we change their confession and still say we truly adhere to the confession?

The Confession wasn't written with the idea that it could or should never be changed. The document itself admits to its fallibility.

Now, can I claim to hold to the original version? No. I hold to the version adopted by my church, the OPC.

Should we believe a doctrine only because it's in the Confession?

I would say no because the RCC church was not around then so it would have had to have a meaning that was present to them, possibly the Judaizers.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

The Confession wasn't written with the idea that it could or should never be changed. The document itself admits to its fallibility.

The fact that the Divines did not claim their confession was infallible does not mean they believed it should be changed.

The fact that I believe the Papacy to be the Antichrist - which can mean "in the place of Christ" as well as "against Christ" - as opposed to an antichrist, like e.g. theological Liberalism, neo-Evangelicalism and the Watchtower Society, is not something that I bring up with potential converts from Roman Catholicism unless they ask me.

This doctrine would be strong meat for a Roman Catholic until the Holy Spirit showed them the nature of the Papacy and its false pretensions.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

20 The Identification of the Man of Sin
Rev. Ken Gentry . . .

Ken Gentry is the antichrist?!?

I had been leaning towards Obama, Bill Maher, Joel Osteen, or even N. Carpathia. Thanks for the tip.

I can accept the papacy as antichrist in the biblical sense of 1 John 2: "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour." 1 John 2:18 (ESV)

From the perspective of 500 years after Calvin's birth, the stand of the RC church during the Reformation certainly qualifies for the designation "antichrist" and as being evidence that "many antichrists have come."

Originally Posted by Poimen

I voted for the third option only because 2 Thessalonians 2 does not speak of the Antichrist but rather the "man of sin (lawless one)". In other words one has to assume that he should be identified as or be equal to the Antichrist (1 John 2,4; 2 John 7) which is not readily apparent.

And, for the record, no I do not believe that the pope and/or papacy is the Antichrist.

I agree with Daniel, except that I would like to clarify that I tend to think that the papacy is the man of sin.

For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

20 The Identification of the Man of Sin
Rev. Ken Gentry . . .

Ken Gentry is the antichrist?!?

I had been leaning towards Obama, Bill Maher, Joel Osteen, or even N. Carpathia. Thanks for the tip.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I need to ask again, "Are the present Confessions wrong in this area?" and if you thank that they are, can you be "Confessional?"

All those who are responding "no" or "I don't know" that hold elder positions, have you voiced this area of disagreement with the Confession?

One ordained in the PCA or OPC should not have to take an exception to the standards if they do believe the Pope is the (or an) Antichrist. The confessional standard does not require that they disbelieve that.

So one is free to either believe or disbelieve it. But one better not marry a 'papist'.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

the Papacy is not the anti christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.

Probably worth pointing out that the Pope claims all the offices of the Trinity:

Good Shepherd - God the Son
Holy Father - God the Father
Vicar of Christ - God the Holy Spirit

Originally Posted by ThomasCartwright

Probably worth pointing out that the Pope claims all the offices of the Trinity:

Good Shepherd - God the Son
Holy Father - God the Father
Vicar of Christ - God the Holy Spirit

Question: Where does the Pope call himself the "good shepherd"? I'm not disputing that, I'd just like to be able to reference it!

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

I believe that Nero was the Anti-Christ.

I believe Nero takes his place along with the Roman Empire as the first beast of the Book of Revelation. That is Nero becomes a type for all succeeding generations of statist persecution.

But from the use of the word antichrist in I John it is clear that an antichrist must have pretensions to be Christian while denying the saving reality of Christianity. For example the Gnostic heresy that John was combatting, theological Liberalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, JWs, Mormonism, and supremely and classically, the Papacy.

The Papacy and these other antichrists have done far worse than any statist persecution of the church could do or will do in the future. They have led people (millions of them) up the garden path with a lie in their right hand when they thought they had salvation. I say that as someone who believes that people can and have found salvation in Rome, when they've looked beyond the rubbish.

These antichrists may be repesented by the second beast (from the earth) with two horns like a lamb who spoke like a dragon, who is also called the false prophet. Their words to the woman (the church) lead to her becoming a whore ( the city Babylon). Thankfully Christ purifies her and she becomes His bride (the city New Jerusalem).

The Man of Sin sitting in God's temple is best seen as the Confession says in the Papacy, which over many centuries has done far more damage to people's souls than Nero's short persecution or any blatant statist persecution could do to the bodies of believers and unbelievers.

There is also no mystery associated with statist persecution, whereas there is mystery associated with the Papacy, Romanism and other antichrists. John the Apostle wonders at Babylon because she is the "Church" but not the Church, and because she persecutes her own children. It is because of the camouflaged/mysterious/cloaking-device nature of the Papacy that people (even believers and Reformed believers) find it hard to believe and say that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

The restrainer of the emergence of the Papacy was the Roman Empire headed by the Emperor.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The Man of Sin sitting in God's temple is best seen as the Confession says in the Papacy, which over many centuries has done far more damage to people's souls than Nero's short persecution or any blatant statist persecution could do to the bodies of believers and unbelievers.

Good point. And not just 'the pope' but the agents of the pope throughout the world.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by ThomasCartwright

Probably worth pointing out that the Pope claims all the offices of the Trinity:

Good Shepherd - God the Son
Holy Father - God the Father
Vicar of Christ - God the Holy Spirit

Question: Where does the Pope call himself the "good shepherd"? I'm not disputing that, I'd just like to be able to reference it!

Tim,

Here is my reference list:


At the death of Pius XII he was elected Pope on 28 October 1958, taking the name John XXIII. His pontificate, which lasted less than five years, presented him to the entire world as an authentic image of the Good Shepherd. Meek and gentle, enterprising and courageous, simple and active, he carried out the Christian duties of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy: visiting the imprisoned and the sick, welcoming those of every nation and faith, bestowing on all his exquisite fatherly care.

Pope John XXIII

How often, in his letters to priests and in his autobiographical books has he spoken to us about his priesthood, to which he was ordained on 1 November 1946. In these texts he interprets his priesthood with particular reference to three sayings of the Lord. First: "You did not choose me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last" (Jn 15:16). The second saying is: "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (Jn 10:11). And then: "As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love" (Jn 15:9). In these three sayings we see the heart and soul of our Holy Father. He really went everywhere, untiringly, in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts. "Rise, Let us be on our Way!" is the title of his next-to-last book. "Rise, let us be on our way!" – with these words he roused us from a lethargic faith, from the sleep of the disciples of both yesterday and today. "Rise, let us be on our way!" he continues to say to us even today. The Holy Father was a priest to the last, for he offered his life to God for his flock and for the entire human family, in a daily self-oblation for the service of the Church, especially amid the sufferings of his final months. And in this way he became one with Christ, the Good Shepherd who loves his sheep. Finally, "abide in my love:" the Pope who tried to meet everyone, who had an ability to forgive and to open his heart to all, tells us once again today, with these words of the Lord, that by abiding in the love of Christ we learn, at the school of Christ, the art of true love.

Funeral Mass and Burial of the Body of the Roman Pontiff John Paul II

My dear Catholics; I am glad to tell you that the Successor of Peter, Pope John Paul II, who is the one in charge of the whole Catholic flock in the world, our good shepherd, has you always in his prayers. He has assured you of his continual care, support and love: He loves you; he loves all Mongolian people.

Eucharistic concelebration for the consecration of the Cathedral of Ulaanbaatar, dedicated to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

How alone we all felt after the passing of John Paul II – the Pope who for over twenty-six years had been our shepherd and guide on our journey through life! He crossed the threshold of the next life, entering into the mystery of God. But he did not take this step alone. Those who believe are never alone – neither in life nor in death. At that moment, we could call upon the Saints from every age –

Mass for the Inauguration of the Pontificate of His Holiness Benedict XVI

1. The Proclamation

Being the millennium of evangelization in Asia, Proclamation becomes a special role for bishops. The bishop takes the place of the Apostles as pastor for the proclamation of the Gospel as a message of hope for humanity torn by conflicts. His mission is to build the local Church 'as a communion of communities' around him, its Shepherd. Against the odds of the secular world, his preaching of the Word and his example will animate the people to a rebirth of a living hope.

Bishop is the first teacher of the faith. Most Catholics do not know their religion well. Hence, Catholics have been vulnerable to attacks from all corners and have gone astray. The Bishop must courageously proclaim the Word "in its entirety" and the people grow in their faith. The laity have the right to know the teachings of the Fathers, Vatican II and the recent Popes on delicate matters of moral and family life and their role in the building up of the Church. The Bishop should make them available to his people through publications, diocesan synods, seminars, pastoral letters, etc.

The bishop is the living presence of Christ in his Church. As a good shepherd in his total self-giving he creates a knowing and loving relationship with his flock. Like Jesus the Good Shepherd, the Bishop governs and guides the poor, the needy and goes in search of the lost sheep to bring them back to the fold.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...se/b17_02.html


Catechism of the Catholic Church

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

The governing office

896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and "form" of the bishop's pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, "the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father":428

Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God's law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.429

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Christ's Faithful - Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life

Conscious that the evangelical parable of the Good Samaritan "has become one of the essential component parts of moral culture and universally human civilization" (SD, 29). and certain that "Christ at the same time taught man to do good with suffering and to do good to those who suffer. In this dual aspect he fully revealed the meaning of suffering" (SD, 30). This is the word of God that the Pope, the "Good Shepherd", expresses in his priesthood.

The person who searches for a model by which to apply the directions derived from these last two acts of John Paul II, will find it alive and active in his priesthood as Supreme Pastor of the Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po...nistry_en.html

In the same spirit of the "pilgrimage of peace", the exact one of the evangelical figure of the "Good Shepherd" who is careful to heal the wounds of his flock, again the Holy Father recently visited Croatia (2-9 June 2003)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/se...ficate_en.html

63. From this Apostolic Center of the Church of Christ, We turn Our eyes toward those who, unfortunately in great numbers, are either ignorant of Christ and His Redemption or do not follow in their entirety His teachings, or who are separated from the unity of His Church and thus are without His Fold, although they too have been called by Christ to membership in His Church. The Vicar of the Good Shepherd, seeing so many of his sheep gone astray, cannot but recall and make his own the simple but expressive words of Christ, words which are permeated through and through by the longings born of divine desire: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring." (John x, 16) He cannot but rejoice in the wonderful prophecy which filled even the Sacred Heart of Jesus with joy. "And they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." May God, and We join with you and with all the faithful in this prayer, shortly bring to fulfillment His prophecy by transforming this consoling vision of the future into a present reality.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pi...nsilio_en.html

The Bishop is an image of the Father; he makes Christ present as the Good Shepherd; he receives the fullness of the Holy Spirit from which spring up teachings and ministerial initiatives for the purpose of building up, in the image of the Trinity and through the word and sacraments, that Church which is the place of God's gift to the faithful who have been entrusted to it.(43)

In the midst of his people the Bishop is the living sign of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd who walks with his flock.

Mary is the primary witness and example for the whole Church of this spiritual union of joy and hope. In her Magnificat, she sings the joy of all the Lord's poor who hope in His Word. She was not spared suffering. However, by uniting suffering in a pre-eminent way to the sacrifice of Her Son, she become at the foot of the cross the "Mother of Sorrows", and thus totally open to the joy of the Resurrection.

She is now with her Son who is seated in glory at the right hand of the Father. Assumed into heaven in the integrity of her person, body and soul, she sums up every joy in herself and lives the perfect joy promised to the Church. The Church looks to her, because she is for all who are still on the earthly pilgrimage "a sign of sure hope and solace until the day of the Lord shall come.(155) The Church also turns to her in prayer, invoking her as Mater Spei, Mater Plena Sanctae Laetitiae and Causa Nostrae Laetitiae.

100. Like every Christian, each Bishop entrusts himself to Mary as her child. In imitation of the Beloved Disciple who received the Lord's mother from Christ on Calvary, the Bishop gives her a place in every aspect of his interior life.(156)

The Church often invokes Mary as Regina Apostolorum. "May the Blessed Virgin intercede for all the Pastors of the Church, so that in their demanding ministry they may be increasingly conformed to the image of the Good Shepherd.(157)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/sy...lineam_en.html

Quote from Berean
Good point. And not just 'the pope' but the agents of the pope throughout the world.

Well "the Papacy" is the whole man-made idolatrous sytem headed up by the Pope that dominates the Roman Catholic Church, and hence sits enthroned in God's Visible Church.

Because I believe the Papacy to be the Antichrist, does not mean that I always believe it to be the main enemy in a particular situation or country. The antichrists of Liberal theology, neo-Evangelicalism, Emerging, etc, are greater threats to the Protestant Church in Britain. Secular humanism and Islam are also external threats greater than the Antichrist that is the Papacy.

To say that these are "threats" is to make a great understatement of course.
The Protestant Church in Great Britain has been mauled terribly by secular humanism and Liberal theology over the past 150 years and left a shadow of her former self; not by Romanism.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

the Papacy is not the anti christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.

Pope's denial of Christ is mystical. Although they agree with the fundamentals (the Apostle's Creed), their principles and their deeds contradict with their confession. The reason why John marvelled at the woman is because her damage to the church is so mystical, and so is her title.

Also, if you believe that the Papacy confirms that Jesus came in the flesh, according to John, they have eternal life. How can the Pope of Rome has anything to do with eternal life?

I think this an entirely valid question. But if the pope is "the" anti-Christ, shouldn't we have had some major eschatological consequences by this point in history?

Originally Posted by Dan "a" man

I think this an entirely valid question. But if the pope is "the" anti-Christ, shouldn't we have had some major eschatological consequences by this point in history?

Yes, we do. As the catechism teaches, we should pray for the destruction of the antichrist, and the prosperity of the church follows.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Quote from Berean
Good point. And not just 'the pope' but the agents of the pope throughout the world.

Well "the Papacy" is the whole man-made idolatrous sytem headed up by the Pope that dominates the Roman Catholic Church, and hence sits enthroned in God's Visible Church.

Because I believe the Papacy to be the Antichrist, does not mean that I always believe it to be the main enemy in a particular situation or country. The antichrists of Liberal theology, neo-Evangelicalism, Emerging, etc, are greater threats to the Protestant Church in Britain. Secular humanism and Islam are also external threats greater than the Antichrist that is the Papacy.

To say that these are "threats" is to make a great understatement of course.
The Protestant Church in Great Britain has been mauled terribly by secular humanism and Liberal theology over the past 150 years and left a shadow of her former self; not by Romanism.

I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day.

Quote from Matthias
I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day.

Well I believe there is enough wickedness in e.g. unconverted nineteenth century German Lutheran theologians, and others in Protestantism, to generate their own false theologies without help from the Papacy.

But if there is underhand influence from the Papacy, it would tie in with Babylon (which I believe to be the Roman Church) being not only a harlot but also the mother of harlots, not only in the sense of being the most notable apostasy, but also in the sense of generating other apostasies.

Quote from Dan ''a'' man
But if the pope is "the" anti-Christ, shouldn't we have had some major eschatological consequences by this point in history?

The Papacy has had major eschatalogical consequences in this New Covenant period for believers and unbelievers alike and will continue doing so until its final overthrow and that of all antichrists. Many have gone to a lost eternity because of the lies of the Papacy regarding the way of salvation and many still are today.

The Papacy is an obstacle - not the only one - to the spread of the Gospel. Less significantly but still importantly, many people who have stood up to the Papacy have lost their lives.

Originally Posted by Matthias

I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day.

Indeed, even Arminianism and its pretension of free will is in principle a return to Rome.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Originally Posted by Matthias

I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day.

Indeed, even Arminianism and its pretension of free will is in principle a return to Rome.

Yep, and there is even evidence to suspect Arminius was a Jesuit. In 1586 when arminius was released from Geneva, he was supposed to travel back to amsterdam where he was under contract to the city to labor in order to pay back his tuition. Instead, he went straight to Rome for a "vacation"

Augustus Toplady (Author of Rock of Ages) says this in his work "The road to Rome":

"The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward to the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant Churches. It needs therefore no great penetration to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome was not for not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted for others to the disciples of Loyola(Jesuits)"

Add those sentiments to this Jesuit document of 1628:

"Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:--OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME."

Interesting stuff if you ask me

Originally Posted by Matthias

We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme

Wow...that is interesting for sure. Thanks for sharing.

My position as of now is that the RCC is the whore of Babylon (Is that right spelling?)...

Check out Patrick Fairbairn's "Interpretation of Prophecy" (BoT). He is an excellent and sound guide to start with. I've also learned from Bahnsen's tape series on Revelation, James Madison MacDonald (recommended by Hodge) and some of Gentry.

Fairbairn doesn't limit the apostate church represented by Babylon to Rome, but believes that that is the main theme.