Polemical debates about the papacy as Antichrist in the 16th century

Deutsch

The debates surrounding the papacy as the Antichrist were already heatedly conducted in the mid-16th century. Polemical disputes between the Jesuit order and the Protestants. An interesting insight into the arguments and counterarguments.

Campaign against Protestant findings

After Francis Ribera (1537 to 1591, Jesuit) had done some groundwork with his completely redesigned version of prophecy, especially Daniel and Revelation (Info), Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542 to 1621, Jesuit) also presented his insights, which aimed to remove the papacy from the focus of the anti-Christian system recognized by the Protestants.

Martin Luther had clearly identified the papal system as the “man of sin, the son of perdition,” and his statements were on the red list at the time of both Jesuits’ ministry. Luther was by no means alone in his confident position regarding the biblical Antichrist (Info).

Take the papacy out of the firing line

The Jesuits’ goal was to reinterpret the biblical descriptions of the Antichrist in such a way that they could not possibly apply to the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. Ribera created a completely new version of the appearance of an Antichrist sometime in the future. This version is still believed today and widely spread in evangelical circles (Info). Bellarmine specialized in refuting the arguments put forward by Protestants and replacing them with his own explanations.

The primary mission of the Jesuit order was and is the destruction of Protestantism and the restoration of the unrestricted power of the Church of Rome. Incidentally, it was Cardinal Bellarmine who forced the explorer Galileo Galilei to recant his findings on a sun-centric system. Today, Bellarmine is considered a “canon,” a Doctor of the Church, and a “Defender of the Church.”

One need not expect pure objectivity in the heated debates surrounding the Antichrist. Polemics were the order of the day. The arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine, as well as those of the Protestants and their responses, reflected this.

Polemical debates Jesuits vs. Protestants

The heated debates between Jesuits and Protestants at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries were taken up by the Lutheran theologian and professor at the University of Erlangen, Hans Preuß (1876 to 1951), in his work “Die Vorstellung vom Antichrist” (“The Idea of ​​the Antichrist”), in the late Middle Ages, in Luther and in confessional polemics (1906).

The basis is Bellarmine’s work “Disputationes de Controversiis” and the explanations it contains as to why “the Pope could not possibly be the Antichrist.” Bellarmine put forward 10 theses on this point.

Thesis 1

Antichrist means “against Christ.” After all, the Pope is for Christ, not against him.

The Protestants’ response: “Amazingly simple refutation.” If the Roman polemicists had believed in their own power, they probably wouldn’t have considered it necessary to look for a host of other arguments against Protestant doctrine. But they probably felt themselves that this was nothing more than a “petitio principii.”

Thesis 2

All the “notae Antichristi” listed by Scripture and the Fathers do not apply to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, he cannot be the Antichrist. Above all, the Antichrist is not a collective figure, but a “certus quidam homo futurs,” an individual.

The Protestant response: This is the general Catholic view. “Catholici omnes ita sentiunt”

Thesis 3

The Antichrist could not have come yet, since the necessary preceding and subsequent signs were still pending: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, the complete dissolution of the Roman Empire (into 10 kingdoms), the arrival of Enoch and Elijah, who had not yet come in John the Baptist (despite Matthew 17:12!), severe persecution of Christians that brought an end to all public Christian worship, the 3.5-year reign of the Antichrist, and shortly thereafter the end of the world. But the Pope has been ruling for a long time, so he cannot be the Antichrist.

The Protestant Response: The Protestants had no difficulty in countering this. They could point out, with Romans 10:18 and Bellarmine himself, that since the days of the Apostles, the Gospel had been resounding “in all the world.” They could remind Bellarmine of his own words, “the ecclesia visibilis will never be without the administration of the sacraments.” As far as the cruel persecution was concerned, the popes since Gregory VII and earlier had amply fulfilled this prophecy.

They countered the 3.5 years with the remark that the great Roman polemicist himself calculated the duration of the Roman Empire according to Revelation 13 to be 42 months, thus also recognizing the significance of weeks of years, etc. Although it is clearly stated in Matthew 17:12 that the appearance of John the Baptist is related to Elijah, this statement is nevertheless rejected.

Thesis 4

When the Antichrist arrives, his proper name will be known, and thus the Antichrist number 666 (Revelation 13:18) will also be interpreted. This is not yet possible; ergo, Antichristus nondum venit nec est R. pontifex.

The Protestant response: It must be acknowledged that Bellarmine refrained from attempting to decipher this number. This is a rare self-description in these intimate times. The positive side of this argument must again be described as extremely weak.

Thesis 5

The emblem of the Antichrist (Revelation 14:9 onwards) cannot be found on the Pontiff. Priestly anointing is unthinkable without artificiality.

The Protestant response: Protestant polemics criticize the superficial interpretation, as if this sign had to be a material thing and could not, rather, also signify an inner quality. Moreover, the Romans themselves are not clear about what the mark means, and therefore this profession cannot decide anything.

Thesis 6

The story of the Antichrist’s birth and youth also does not fit the papacy at all. However, three groups of views can be distinguished here. a) The erronea sententia is that the Antichrist comes ex viergine opera Diaboli, that he is the devil himself, that he is a diabolus incarnatus, or perhaps Nero redivivus (even the old dogmatists on the Protestant side could not distinguish the difference between the second and third views). b) Probabilis is the opinion that the Antichrist will be the son of a prostitute and descend from the tribe of Dan. c) The view that he will come for the sake of the Jews, that he will be a Jew himself and will be received by them as the Messiah, that he will have circumcision performed on himself and that he will elevate the Sabbath to universal law is described as certissima. Ergo etc.

The Protestant response: These fables have been met with Protestant polemics full of anger and ridicule. Can we blame them? Here, it is particularly clear that this was a dispute over principles, not merely over external values.

Thesis 7

The Antichrist will take up his seat in the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Pope will reside in Rome. Interpreting Templum Dei (2 Thessalonians 2:4) as “Church,” “Christianity,” according to 1 Corinthians 3:16, is inappropriate because if the Antichrist were to take up his seat in the Church, Christianity would be doomed, which contradicts Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18.

The Protestant Response: Nevertheless, Protestants continue to adhere to their principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture and to their old interpretation of the “Temple of God.”

Thesis 8

Bellarmine (e. XIV) also believes that the biblical statements about the teachings of the Antichrist do not apply to the Roman Pope. According to them, the Pope would deny that Jesus was the Messiah and claim that he himself was, indeed that he was God himself and he alone. How could this prophesy the Pope, who calls himself servus servorum Dei and whose touching, selfless care for Christ’s flock deserves a different judgment?

The Protestant Response: The opponents, however, pointed out, as Luther had already done, that the Pope, while not denying Jesus, denies Jesus opere and, with his decrees, elevates himself above God’s Word, and thus also above God himself.

Thesis 9

“The Scriptures and the Fathers attribute lying miracles to the Antichrist and his servants, namely according to Revelation 13: fire from heaven, a talking beast, death, and resurrection. The popes have performed none. Ergo, etc.” The “mendacia miracula” that the Magdeburg centuries attribute to the popes are neither those mentioned in Revelation 13, nor are they mendacia.”

The Protestant Response: For the Protestants’ response to this is that the Antichrist miracles in Revelation 13 are to be understood as mystical, non proprie, so this is a petitio principii, just as Bellarmine’s interpretation is one.

Thesis 10

“Finally, what is expected according to Daniel 11 and Revelation 20 does not apply to the popes: the restoration of a Jewish kingdom, the removal of the kings of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, the conquest of the entire world, and the persecution of Christendom with an innumerable army.”

The Protestant Response: One cannot blame the Protestants for finding a different, equally erroneous interpretation for these dark apocalyptic passages.

Hans Preuß commented:
It is a general principle of apologetic wisdom to remain silent about anything that could give one’s opponent a sure reason to ridicule. Thus, we can observe in Roman polemics that they tacitly curtail the medieval ecclesiastical Antichrist myth in its most outrageous excesses.

Insights increased

One can see that the interpretation of Revelation 13 was not yet fully understood at that time. Neither by Rome nor by the Protestants. In Revelation 13, two different beasts are at work (Info). For the beast that performs “signs and wonders” (Revelation 13:13) is the beast from the earth (Info). In fact, it is the first beast (from the sea) that represents this antichrist system, while the beast from the earth is “merely” the compliant executive power that will impose the will of the first beast upon humans.

Around 400 years have passed since the time of the polemical debates. Much has happened, and a look at history provides an explanation for the meanings of the prophecies that were not yet understood at the time. The “mortal wound” (Revelation 13:3) on the beast from the sea has since occurred (1798), and the healing is almost complete.

It is astonishing that, although the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist, who has been raging for around 1,700 years, has become increasingly obvious and clear due to the now-fulfilled prophecies, this fact has largely disappeared from the minds of Protestants today. “The papacy has changed,” is the prevailing misperception. Although the Church of Rome proves almost daily that it has not deviated even a single millimeter from its medieval, already “infallible” decisions (Info).

Bible verses from King James Version (1611)