Is the pope the Antichrist? Many of the Reformers thought so. Tyndale was among one of the first to assert it so. So did Cranmer, the architect of the Anglican Church. For some centuries afterwards, Puritans and Calvinists were certain of it and were unhesitating in saying so; for them the pope and the Antichrist were synonymous. Indeed, the slogan served as their battle-cry. There are still many Christians, however, who voice the same sentiment. So is the pope the Antichirst? Christian integrity demands an honest response.
For us to understand why such a serious charge could be made and a proper answer framed, we need to keep in mind two considerations.
First, it is not ours to fight the battles the early Reformers and Puritans fought, even though we fight the same war: for the truth of the gospel. The war goes on. Battles, on the other hand, are occasional, opportunistic, and shaped and limited to specific time, place and actors. Second, and consequent on the first, is the question of which pope are we talking about? As of 2022, there have been 266 popes1; this is the official figure given by the Vatican, though most non-Catholic historians do not recognize those before Damascus I (r336-384), who ranks 37th from Peter. Which of these 266 are we talking about when it is asserted that "the pope is the Antichirst"?
I can, off hand, think of two who stands the best chances of being the Anti-Christ, and many Catholics would agree with my choice: Pope Alexander VI (r1492-1503) and Pope Julius II (r1503-13). The first shared an open secret that he wanted the office for the power it would give him, and was quite unashame to buy the votes to get him elected (what is called simony). He made infamous the already infamous reputation of the Borgia family with his scandalous lifestyle. While priests were supposed to be celibrate, he had countless mistresses, living openly with two of them who were already married, and with whom he fathered seven children. His other affairs were known but countless. Of his children he recognized three; one was murdered (possibly by his other son), the other—Cesare Borgia—lived a sociopathic life that made him the model for "the prince" in Machiavelli's famous work. He married off his daughter three times as a pawn to further and consolidate his power. Though the claims that he committed incest with her are probably rumours, the orgies probably had factual basis even if they were no as perverted as often claimed. One writer even suggested that at least one cadaver of his enemies fed the Tiber (the river that runs through Rome) so that he may keep himself in power. There was nothing spiritual in this man that would even make him worthy of a simple counsel much less wisdom and truth for Christ's church.
The second, Julius II, is renown as the "warrior pope." It tells that he did not chose his papal name after Pope Julius I, but after Julius Ceasar. Like Alexander, he took came to the papal throne by bribing the cardinals in the election , but it did one "better": immediately after elected he decreed the ban on simony (henceforth, of course).2 For the rest of his reign, he was constantly at war,3to expand the territorial glory of the Catholic Church and his power. Tens of thousands died in the wars he provoked while the spiritual lives of the common people descended into superstitions and ignorance. Even within his own lifetime, there were already criticism though the most caustic came in an anonymous tract4 entitled Julius Exclusus published soon after his death. It imagined Julius, in his full papal regalia—tiara, priestly vestments with military armour beneath—and accompanied by a retinue of his soldiers, coming to the gates of paradise, only to find it locked against him. Prohibited from entering paradise and after a heated exchange between Peter and the pope on his lack of qualification for life in paradise, the pope threated to excommunicate Peter and to raise an army to break down the gates of paradise. Such was the pope's hubris.
So, were they the AntiChrist? What makes a person the AntiChrist? Yes, these two popes lived eminently despicable lives. There was nothing in their lives, except as they verbalize the rituals of the Catholic Church, that say Christ. But does that make them the AntiChrist? And even if we are able, beyond reasonable doubt, show that a certain pope was the Antichrist, does it make all popes Antichrists?
As we have noted in the main article (see click here), four passages in Scriptures speak of the AntiChrist: 1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7. The common denominator that identifies the AntiChrist is the denial of Jesus as "the Christ" and His incarnation. No popes, as far as I know, including Alexander VI and Julius II, has ever denied that Jesus is the Christ, or that He is the Son of God come in the flesh. Many popes have abused the institution of Christ's Church for their own personal agenda, pride and glory, yes, but this is not a biblical criteria for identifying the AntiChrist. As much as we may despise them, we have no right to make up our own rules about what makes the AntiChrist and applying them hither thither according to our moral scale. In the end, we have to admit that the assertion, "the Pope is the AntiChrist," is only a slogan, useful for polemics but empty of substance, and worse, empty of truth. It has been used far too often in (even needful) battles in the past. Of itself the slogan had gleaned no really useful theological gains, only raising the temperature and ire of all involved. It is time to bury the assertion. Both truth and love demands we do it.
Notes:
1. This gives only an average time in office of just seven and a half years. (back)
2. Though he had previously condemned publicly Alexander VI for doing the same. (back)
3. To be fair to him, as the patron of Michelangelo and the architect of St Peter Basilica, he did leave us with great art. (back)
4. Many scholars believe Erasmus was the likely author, though the name of the English diplomat Richard Pace has also been suggested. (back)
Low Chai Hok, 2022
©ALBERITH
060822lch