I
found this on the net and it says, "After this general survey of the Protestant
views concerning the Antichrist, we shall be able to appreciate some of Cardinal Newman's
critical remarks on the question [re: AntiChrist].” We will assume that the writer is either
quoting or presenting the cardinal’s view on the subject matter; and we will also give
our view:
"If any part
of the Church be proved to be antichristian, all of the Church is so, the
Protestant branch inclusive."
To disprove the papal-antichrist
theory by arguing that if it is true, it would also include “all of the Church”
including the Protestant, is not a sound
argument. It is the same as saying, “since the Catholic Church is [of] the Antichrist, then all churches are too, all destined to go
to hell.” This smells like an
admission, but at the same time like saying ‘we are not alone.’
And
it probably is true, since the antichrist is associated with "Babylon the
great " (Rev.17.4), described as a harlot (woman=church, therefore, evil
woman= evil church) . This harlot is
also described as mother of harlots.
Therefore the harlot-evil church has daughters that are harlots too. (evil
women=evil churches). The ‘Cardinal’s argument did not disprove the
theory, he , in fact, confirms it. In few words.
"The
Papal-Antichrist theory was gradually developed by three historical bodies: the
Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the Fraticelli, between the eleventh and the
sixteenth centuries: are these the expositors from whom the Church of Christ is
to receive the true interpretation of the prophecies?"
The cardinal’s question of course is rhetorical. Cardinal Newman only
means that the Albigensis, Waldenses, and all schools of thought pointing to
the pope or the Catholic church as the
Antichrist are not the authorities to give us the true interpretation of the
prophecies about the Antichrist. And at the same time rhetorically places
the Catholic Church as the one who can truly interpret it. But the
problem is, what if the Papal-Antichrist theory is correct? The result
is obvious. The world would be deprived of knowing the true identity of
the Antichrist.
The Catholic Church as of yet, has not given us a concrete and complete
interpretation of the prophecies. The most that they have done so far is
to point to a future Antichrist, or to some sort of a redherring. They say that
the Antichrist could be Nero, and with some clever manipulation, the name adds up to 666.
Through it all, in effect, the official church declaration is that there is no
antichrist yet.
But
isn’t it clear from the bible that the spirit of the Antichrist was
already
working during time of the apostles? (1 John 4:2) That from the ranks
of
bishops of the first century church “shall men arise, speaking perverse
things
to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30)? Wasn’t the catholic
church could be traced back from then? These are just some valid
observations that
place the Pope, even the church itself, as the prime suspect of being
the
Antichrist.
"The defenders of the Papal-Antichrist theory have made several signal
blunders in their arguments;..."
I
agree. But their several blunders do not automatically make the theory
false. It could also mean that they are the harlot daughters of a harlot
mother. Pardon my french.
"Protestants
were driven to the Papal-Antichrist theory by the necessity of opposing a
popular answer to the popular and cogent arguments advanced by the Church of
Rome for her Divine authority"
Hmmm. What are those popular and cogent arguments advanced by the
Church of Rome? That Nero could be the Antichrist? That is not
popular, much less cogent to me.
That the church of Rome, nor any
part of it, could not be the Antichrist, because of its divine authority owing
to the fact that it could be traced back to the first century church?
Well, here is something for that timeline: Paul said, “after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Acts
20:29). The flock is the church. (v. 28). The wolves did enter the church after Paul's departure. Maybe I'm wrong in understanding Paul. I let you understand the statement yourself.
Of course anyone can claim Divine authority.
But proving it is another story.
" Warburton,
Newton, and Hurd, the advocates of the Papal-Antichrist theory, cannot be
matched against the saints of the Church of Rome."
Another
claim, that is, that there are saints in the church of Rome.
"If
the Pope be Antichrist, those who receive and follow him cannot be men like St.
Charles Borromeo, or Fénelon, or St. Bernard, or St. Francis de Sales."
Why, who are these saints? Apostles? Prophets? Who made them saints,
anyway? The words of God? No, the Pope through the process of beatification and
canonization. Why cite these "saints" in belying the
"papal-antichrist theory" even to non-Catholics?
To
the readers: Everyone is welcomed to ask questions, to give
their comments on this subject or to any subject in this blog.
(Quotes are from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm)
