Reasons for saying the Pope is the Antichrist

I have been looking at the subject of why Reformers, Popes (as they attacked each other) and also well respected scholars today - say that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Of course the "knee-jerk" read-nothing and no-time-to-think-about-it reaction would be "it is something-something-bad about the RCC so it must be wrong".

CH Spurgeon. He said: "It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question, if it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name...if we pray against it, because it is against Him,we shall love the persons though we hate their errors...and so the breath of our prayers shall be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray."

Click to expand...

Dr. H. Grattan Guinness, revival preacher of 1859, who said:

"I see THE GREAT APOSTASY,

I see the desolation of Christendom,

I see the smoking ruins,

I see the reign of monsters;

I see those vice-gods,.Gregory VIII..Innocent III..Boniface VIII..Alexander VI.. Gregory XIII..Pius IX;

I see their long succession, I see their abominable lives,

I see them worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions ...

I see the infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents..

I hear the cries of the victims..the anathemas..curses..interdicts;

I see the racks ..dungeons ..stakes...those fires of Smithfield...St. Bartholomew..

I see it all, and in the name of the ruin it has wrought.. truth it has denied..Temple it has defiled.. God it has blasphemed..souls it has destroyed..millions it has deluded (and) slaughtered (and) damned;

With holy confessors..noble reformers..innumerable martyrs..the saints of all ages, I denounce it as the masterpiece of Satan as the body and soul and essence of Antichrist."

Click to expand...

All of this is true - but to be honest - the term antichrist is not used in 2Thess 2 and is in fact only used in 1John 2 and in 2John. And it has to be admitted that the details that we find there for antichrist do not fit the Pope or the RCC.

So although 2Thess 2 may fit the claims of the RCC and some of its history (at least to some extent) and while Rev 12 and 13 and 17 and Daniel 7 and 8 may clearly identify it -- none of those chapters actually employ the term "Antichrist".

In the Bible it is "John" that owns that term - and his definition does not fit either the Pope or the RCC.

At least that is how it appears to me.

In Christ,

Bob

Now you're on the right track!

Though the passages you cite which "appear" to identify Rome, they in fact do not.

Only Jerusalem fits the description. Try not to fit history into Scripture. Instead, fit history with Scripture. Nothing in the NT prophecies can be divorced from the OT. And in the OT we find God dealing with Isreal and its continuous betrayal of Him. Hence, when we find "false prophet" we must interpret it as the OT does. When we find "whore" we must interpret it as does the OT. When we find "blood of the prophets" we must look to the OT to find who it was that was guilty of such things.

For an interesting study you can do on your own, look at the clothing of the "woman in scarlet" in Revelation and see if you can find an exact parallel in the OT. You will be surprised at what you find, I think.

In HIS service;
Jim

Bob I think you are right. The New Testament seems to limit the title "antichrist" to people who deny the incarnation.

Though the passages you cite which "appear" to identify Rome, they in fact do not.

Only Jerusalem fits the description. Try not to fit history into Scripture. Instead, fit history with Scripture. Nothing in the NT prophecies can be divorced from the OT. And in the OT we find God dealing with Isreal and its continuous betrayal of Him. Hence, when we find "false prophet" we must interpret it as the OT does. When we find "whore" we must interpret it as does the OT. When we find "blood of the prophets" we must look to the OT to find who it was that was guilty of such things.

Click to expand...

Being KJVO, apparently from your name; I would have thought you would be a typical dispensationalist. Are you preterist, then?

I take a dualist view; which has Jerusalem being the typical, immediate fulfillment; and the endtime apostate Church being the future antitype. (Just as the true Church was the antitype of the ideal of the Kingdom of Israel). I always nominally held that view; but hearing the views of the preterists in the past year has shown me how Jerusalem and its destruction is more significant than any of us have realized.

Also, to clarify; while the Reformers and SDA's see the papacy as the antichrist; most of us see the antichrist as a political ruler, and the "woman" or "little horn" as representing the religious system that works with it. As Armstrong put it: "the beast is not the woman who rode the beast.- for 'beast' is a govt. and 'woman' is a church". That would clear up some of the misunderstanding here. "Antichrist" was simply a manmade name plugged in as an additional title of the Beast (as an individual ruler). Apparently, people were doing this back in John's day, and he points out that it is not just a final false leader they should worry about; but rather anyone teaching false doctrine; particularly regarding Christ.

No I am NOT preterist nor even partial preterist. And Armstrong is wrong also. "Woman" is not a church but is in fact the adulterous "wife" of God. See Hosea. 2:11-13
I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
Ho 2:12
And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me: and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them.
Ho 2:13
And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the LORD.
And compare with
Rev.17:3-6
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Re 17:4
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Re 17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Re 17:6
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Also, one cannot read Rev. 18 and conclude it is Rome unless one reads into it what is not there. It is not Rome which has become the great merchants of all time but it IS the Diaspora Jewish people. The Tribulation, (as many have said and assert) is not to correct Gentiles and bring them to repentance, but it is to correct Jerusalem and hence all Israel, and bring them to repentance and to bring them to acknowledge their King, none other than Christ Jesus. The Gentile nations who suffer the judgments of God during the Tribulation do so only insofar as they are guilty. Nevertheless it is God who brings them to bear upon Israel to correct them, just as He did the Babylonians, and the Assyrians. And why did God bring destruction upon Israel? Because of their idolatry and unfaithfulness as His wife, as we see in Hosea. The Trib. is called Jacob's Trouble for a reason folks.

Although some returned from the Babylonian Diaspora, MOST did not. To this day they are still dispersed among the Gentile nations making merchandise and getting rich and making those nations rich as well by their industry. Though some have returned to Israel as we see in these last days, most are still dispersed.

No. The woman is not Rome. And "The Anti-Christ" who shall call himself God and sit in the Temple, will be of Israeli descent and will be a religous Jew who proclaims himself to be the long awaited Messiah.


In HIS service;
Jim

It is sick to try to demonize the Pope. Thinti Christ is not anti Christ position.
The term Pope means "Popa".
Leaders should be thought of as a Father or Papa.
They should be respected and held in High esteem.
Anyone that cannot be held in high esteem is not a good leader.

Eric said --
Also, to clarify; while the Reformers and SDA's see the papacy as the antichrist; most of us see the antichrist as a political ruler, and the "woman" or "little horn" as representing the religious system that works with it. As Armstrong put it: "the beast is not the woman who rode the beast.- for 'beast' is a govt. and 'woman' is a church". That would clear up some of the misunderstanding here.

"Antichrist" was simply a manmade name plugged in as an additional title of the Beast (as an individual ruler). Apparently, people were doing this back in John's day, and he points out that it is not just a final false leader they should worry about; but rather anyone teaching false doctrine; particularly regarding Christ.

Click to expand...

AntiChrist is not man-made. It is in 1John 2 and in 2John.

1John 2
17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.
18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.
21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

...

2John 1
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Click to expand...

My point is that this is the only definition of antichrist. Those who do not admit that Jesus is the Messiah or those that deny that He came in human flesh.

In Christ,

Bob

The discussion about how Rev 17 identifies the RCC, and Rev 12 identifies the RCC and Rev 13 continues with that -- is good but it not a discussion about the 1John 2 and 2John topic of "antichrist".

Neither is the 2thess 2 discussion about the "man of sin" that fits the RCC in many ways - ALSO included in John's term "AntiChrist" in 1John 2 and in 2John.

At least it does not appear that John is including those other things in at the time he speaks of antichrist.

Admittedly the POPES DID apply the term "antichrist" to fellow/rival popes.

Should we follow their lead?

In Christ,

Bob

Since Popes call themselves the vicar of Christ, then would they be false Christs and therefore antichrist? Methinks so. So would Matreya (sp) Koresh, Moon, and a host of others.
I think John is simply identifying the character of an antichrist, not necessarily that "man of sin".

In HIS service;
Jim

I agree - the man of sin in 2Thess 2 is a future character that Paul says MUST appear at the end of time - so that nobody in his day should be deceived as though that time had already come SINCE they don't see the "man of lawlessness" yet.

But in 1John and 2John - the point is made that there are many antichrists and some are already in place and the are known by the doctrinal error that Jesus is not the Messiah (Christ) and/or that the Messiah did not "come in the flesh".

Those were very real doctrinal errors and do not apply to the RCC or the Pope. So one could not equivocate between the "future" man of sin in 2Thess 2 and the PRESENT set of antichrists in 1John 2.

In Christ,

Bob

I agree. And THAT is also one of the many reasons that I beleive the "man of sin" will be either an Israelite or a Muslim.

In HIS service;
Jim

The point I was making - is that the "Antichrist" as defined by John - was in fact more than one person (there are many) and was active in the first century, teaching that Jesus was not the Christ or that God the Son had not come in the flesh.

That is entirely different from the subject of the "man of sin" in 2Thess 2. For that discussion we would need evidence/details/specific to the 2Thess 2 text to determine what it is. It would not have any bearing at all on the 1John 2 and 2John discussion of "antichrist".

My point in this thread was to note that the reformers DID use the 2Thess 2 details as applicable to the term "antichrist" even though that is taken liberties with the text that good exegesis would not allow.

Also the RCC itself took similar liberties with the 1John 2 term "Antichrist" to label rival Popes with that same title.

While it may be true that there are details in places like 2Thess 2 and Daniel 7-8 and Rev 12-13, 17 that could be pointing to the RCC, - those texts can not be mixed-in with 1John 2 and the term "antichrist".

None of them actually use the term Antichrist nor do they rely on the definition that John provides for that term.

Since he is the only one to actually mention the term - I think it is better to leave it with him rather than drag those other ideas into one gigantic "bad guy" that becomes in effect - all evils in all ages from the time of John to today.

In Christ,

Bob

And Armstrong is wrong also. "Woman" is not a church but is in fact the adulterous "wife" of God. See Hosea. 2:11-13

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what one could say an apostate church is. Precisely the point.

Also, one cannot read Rev. 18 and conclude it is Rome unless one reads into it what is not there. It is not Rome which has become the great merchants of all time but it IS the Diaspora Jewish people.

Click to expand...

Rome, as an institution can be seen like more a "merchant" (symbolically speaking, at least) than any Jewish institution ever was.

Although some returned from the Babylonian Diaspora, MOST did not. To this day they are still dispersed among the Gentile nations making merchandise and getting rich and making those nations rich as well by their industry.

Click to expand...

And now you're talking about the people, rather than any religious institution. (Many of these Jews aren't even religious, beyond nominally). While your view is a bit unique in holding the woman as Israel, but still holding a future fulfillment, as I can see; still, playing the old stereotype of "Jews and their money" into endtime prophecy is a bit alarming to me. I believe the Aryans are ultimately the real powers in the world; and they have long tried to point the finger at the Jews; to get themselves off the hook and justify their historic treatment of them, at the same time. Jews may be involved in the endtimes, and of course use any money/financial power they have would be used; but that does not make them the final "Babylon". To be consistent with the view that Israel is Babylon; one would be a preterist, and then in that case; the judgment for them came already at the destruction of the Temple, and the whole institution of Jerusalem and all the geneologies, etc. in AD70. But I see a clear typical correlation of that with apostate Christendom in the future.

The Tribulation, (as many have said and assert) is not to correct Gentiles and bring them to repentance, but it is to correct Jerusalem and hence all Israel, and bring them to repentance and to bring them to acknowledge their King, none other than Christ Jesus. The Gentile nations who suffer the judgments of God during the Tribulation do so only insofar as they are guilty. Nevertheless it is God who brings them to bear upon Israel to correct them, just as He did the Babylonians, and the Assyrians. And why did God bring destruction upon Israel? Because of their idolatry and unfaithfulness as His wife, as we see in Hosea. The Trib. is called Jacob's Trouble for a reason folks.

Click to expand...

Well, not all believe the WHOLE PERIOD is the "tribulation". That was loosely applied to the whole thing; then assumed to be synonymous by most dispensationalists. The Tribulation is really only the fifth seal. The time of judgment on the whole world is the DAY OF THE LORD.

No. The woman is not Rome. And "The Anti-Christ" who shall call himself God and sit in the Temple, will be of Israeli descent and will be a religous Jew who proclaims himself to be the long awaited Messiah.

Click to expand...

"Antichrist" also has become ambiguous. As I said; it is not really an official biblical designation for the endtime ruler. Technically, there are TWO "antichrists": the religious leader, or "False prophet", who could be as you said. And, the political leader; whom most think of when they say "antichrist". "Man of sin" also could be either; but generally people lean to that being the False prophet.

AntiChrist is not man-made. It is in 1John 2 and in 2John.

Click to expand...

John refers to it as something they have "heard". It was not coined elsewhere in the NT; only in this reference. And here John even deflects its meaning to a more broader category.

My point is that this is the only definition of antichrist. Those who do not admit that Jesus is the Messiah or those that deny that He came in human flesh.

Click to expand...

And if you take the "antichrist" to be the political, rather than religious leader; he could very well be a non-christians who does deny Christ. And even the religious leader could in effect deny tha He came on the flesh, (as many do), or do something like make Mary co-redemptrix; that would in effect deny Christ.

Eric said
Antichrist" also has become ambiguous.

Click to expand...

"Has become" is the key. We have turned it from what the text says - into something of our own creation.

What if we just leave it as it is defined in the Bible.

John defines the antichrists as those that deny that Jesus is the Messiah or deny that the Messiah came "in the flesh".

Eric --

As I said; it is not really an official biblical designation for the endtime ruler. Technically, there are TWO "antichrists": the religious leader, or "False prophet", who could be as you said. And, the political leader; whom most think of when they say "antichrist".

Click to expand...

Correct - one is identified in the Bible as "Antichrist" using the Bible definition for Antichrist.

The other is simply a "popular mislabeling" that simply slaps 1John 2 "wording" onto 2Thess 2 or Rev 13 or Dan 7 etc.

So that means taking the 2Thess 2 "man of sin" anc "calling him antichrist anyway".

Certainly all error and all evil is "anti-Christ", but not all of it is assigned when John uses the term in 1John 2.

Certainly the Popes called EACH OTHER antichrist as a way to get the public attention.

In Christ,

Bob

And if you take the "antichrist" to be the political, rather than religious leader; he could very well be a non-christians who does deny Christ. And even the religious leader could in effect deny tha He came on the flesh, (as many do), or do something like make Mary co-redemptrix; that would in effect deny Christ.

Click to expand...

The problem is that using the term antichrist as a way to label all the end-time bad-guys does not help since John says there are many of them and that he had them in his day.

In that case it does not help to have Paul say that WE KNOW that the resurrection and the coming of Christ has not happened since the man of sin has not yet been revealed -- IF in fact we are going to call the "man of sin" in 2Thess 2 the same thing that John says HAS ALREADY come in the days of the NT church.

In Christ,

Bob

Let's see who has been labeled the antichrist:

The Popejust about every pope has been given the title of Antichrist. The pontiff is a favorite among evangelicals. During the Middle Ages, when the power of the pope was more pronounced, the title was more plausible. Today, the political power of the Pope has long since waned.

George W. Bush

Antiochus Epiphanes He was one of only a few pre-Christ candidates and is described by scholars as being a type of Antichrist. Epiphanes was predicted by Daniel the prophet, and he fulfilled many of the prophecies that the real Antichrist will repeat.

Roman Emperor Nero He was one of the first and one of the greatest persons to fit the role of Antichrist. He put many Christians to death, and even killed members of his own family. Nero's actions actually helped the Church to multiply faster. When he learned the Roman Senate was plotting against him, he died by poisoning himself.


Charlemagne He lived from 742-814 AD and controlled much of Central Europe. Charlemagne put himself into the shoes of the Antichrist by trying to rebuild the Roman Empire, a task that only the real Antichrist will accomplish. He died before achieving his goal.

Napoleon The self-crowned French Emperor was not particularly a depraved man: He did not persecute the Church, and he lacked a number of the qualities needed for the role. His downfall was that he loved war too much. Napoleon, like Charlemagne, worked at reviving the Roman Empire.

Aleister CrowleyHe was a male witch who lived in England from 1875 to 1947, and who was so evil that his nicknames were “the Beast” and “666.” A number of rock and roll groups such as The Beatles, The Doors and Ozzy Osbourne featured references to him on their albums.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt The numerical value of FDR's name was reported to add up to 666. Because of the Great Depression, FDR was the most autocratic US President of the 20th century. Roosevelt was in office for 12 years.

Benito Mussolini Because Mussolini became the dictator of Italy, the original capital of the Roman Empire, he was the subject of a great deal of commentary during his rule from 1922 to 1943. His extreme arrogance fit the role of Antichrist, but his military capabilities were laughable. Italy needed help from Germany all throughout World War II.

Adolf Hitler Most people would describe this man as the most villainous man who ever lived. He remains a demonic forewarning of what the real Antichrist will be like.

Joseph Stalin This Russian dictator is believed to be the greatest mass murderer of all time, having killed 30 million people. Most of history's tyrants killed foreigners; Stalin specialized in killing his own citizens.

Francisco Franco He was the dictator of Spain from 1936 until his death in 1975. Franco was called the Antichrist not because of his actions, but more because of a genealogical connection. Upon his death, the dubious honor of being called the Antichrist passed to Prince Juan Carlos.

John F. Kennedy As the nation's first Roman Catholic President, John F. Kennedy was believed to do the pope's bidding. At the 1956 Democratic convention, he received 666 votes. When Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas, several people waited for this deadly wound to heal. It never happened.

Henry Kissinger Because of Mr. Kissinger's activity in the Middle East, he was labeled the Antichrist. I've always thought his raspy voice would be the first thing to disqualify him.

King Juan Carlos of Spain The late prophecy teacher Charles Taylor was a big proponent of the idea that Juan Carlos is the Antichrist because of his bloodline and because he's the king of the tenth nation to join the European Union.

Ayatollah Khomeini One of the grumpiest men to ever live, he bedeviled the US for a number of years.

Ronald Wilson Reagan Say it isn't so, Ron. During the ‘80s when he was President, there was talk going around about the fact that he had six letters in all three of his names.

Mikhail Gorbachev The first Russian leader to support the rights of the people has been and remains a candidate for the job of Antichrist. Until Gorby dies, prophecy watchers will keep an eye on him. I guess being born with that mark on his head was too obvious for some.

Maitreya A camera-shy New Age personage, who is said to be on this earth somewhere, is waiting for his opportunity to save the world.

Sun Myung Moon This leader of the Unification Church openly claims to be the Messiah. Moon recently was sent to jail for tax evasion. Jesus, by having a tax collector on His staff, didn't suffer from tax problems. You pick which one was the smarter Messiah.

PLO leader Yassir Arafat When Arafat signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1993, some thought that he was bringing to pass the prophecy regarding the Antichrist signing a seven-year peace treaty with Israel. In order for this to be the case, we would be well into the tribulation period.

Louis Farrakhan Farrakhan has worked hard to earn the title of Antichrist: He has met with every Islamic dictator there is, and he's called the Jewish faith "a gutter religion." Farrakhan has said that Jesus was "just a prophet" and that he, Louis Farrakhan, is the true Jesus.

Karl Hapsburg JJust like Juan Carlos, Karl Hapsburg has a good shot at being the Antichrist simply because of who he is. His family holds the title of ruler over Jerusalem. The Hapsburg family also reigned over the Holy Roman Empire at one time. The European Union will be a revival of the Roman Empire.

William Jefferson Clinton A number of folks have said, "Clinton is Satan's pet." Newsgroups and websites claim that they added up William Jefferson Clinton numerologically to total 666.

Sam Donaldson of ABC News

Barney the Dinosaur Because John, the writer of Revelation, would never have known what a dinosaur looked like, it's logical to assume he would have identified any vision of Barney as one of a dragon. Taking this into consideration, you might find the following Scriptures quite revealing: Revelation 12:3, "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon…,"
Revelation 13:4, "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"
Revelation 20:2, "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."

Bill Gates If the beast needs to be computer literate and financially well-off, then Bill Gates is a good candidate.

Prince Charles of Wales I'm told that “old big ears” Prince Charles could be the beast. Charles has had the familiar numerology claims made about him--ones that equate his name with 666. Further, he is believed to have ancestral links to the Roman Empire. It was also reported to me that he's a vegetarian, which could explain why the Antichrist will stop the daily animal sacrifices in the Jewish Temple.

Jacques Chirac French President Jacques Chirac has been involved in a flurry of diplomatic activity. His high profile has caught the attention of several prophecy watchers.


http://www.raptureready.com/rr-antichrist.html

L4H
Let's see who has been labeled the antichrist:

The Pope - just about every pope has been given the title of Antichrist. The pontiff is a favorite among evangelicals. During the Middle Ages, when the power of the pope was more pronounced, the title was more plausible. Today, the political power of the Pope has long since waned.

Click to expand...

Actually you missed "the big one" here for the Pope. That is the case of FELLOW Popes AND Cardinals calling the POPE antichrist.

BEFORE the Schism - when Gregory XI died the Romans feared a French Pope "might" be elected. As Bokenkotter states (pg 166)

"Dismay soon gave way to panic as the sixteen Cardinals assembled on April 7 1378. Some of them were assaulted in the street and warned by the bullies to elect (Urban VI) an Italian... The Cardinals quickly elected an Italian, the archbishop of Bari, Bartholomew Prignano, who was not even of their number. In the meantime, a mob in ugly mood had seized the papal wine cellars and invaded the Vatican; while waiting for Prignano to arrive, the cardinals dressed up one of their colleagues and presented him in papal robes to pacify the crowd.
Whether the cardinals were REALLY overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of Catholic history...

The SCHISM BEGAN when THE CARDINALS - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..BOTH Popes received support from civil governments - splitting Western Christendom into TWO camps. The Holy Roman Emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon JOINED by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Itally itself was TOO confused for either side to count on)... Urban proclaimed a crusade against Clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade Queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement.

Both popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of their constituents...urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the pope's warship..Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor. Boniface ix...
This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics."

Click to expand...

So now we have the situation where rival popes call each other "Antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant".

Why would that be? Is it because of the "claims of the office" and the fact that they consider their peers (their opponents) to be making a "false claim" by definition?

Is "that" really enough to qualify for the title? Where they correct to label their peers in such a way?

In Christ,

Bob

During the Middle Ages, when the power of the pope was more pronounced, the title was more plausible. Today, the political power of the Pope has long since waned.

Click to expand...

But the whole premise is that the woman will once again rise; when the beast (now in the inactive state known as "the bottomless pit") once again rises.

Several of those other leaders you mentioned ARE actually apart of it; either as types (Nero), or as HORNS/HEADS of the beast:
From my site, http://members.aol.com/etb700/revelation.html:
The seven heads are the various resurrections of the Empire after the deadly wound was healed, beginning with
Justinian(554). Then there was
the Frankish kingdom (begun 774, Charlemagne crowned 800),
Otto the Great(German, 962)
The Habsburgs (Austrian, Charles V crowned 1520),
Napoleon(French, 1805),
Garibaldi/Mussolini(Italy; "Viva Il Duce"=666! and includes Hitler's related Nazi movement, 1870-1945),
and then finally, the future resurrection of the Beast, under the Antichrist [I use the term for the sake of familiarity], as a 10-nationed empire, symbolized by the 10 horns (v.12 shows that they arise at the same time, and are therefore all on the last head, contrary to most illustrations). It's these 10 horns which are the same as the 10 toes of Nebuchadnezzar's image (Daniel 2), not the 10 horns of Daniel 7/Rev.13, which are the seven heads of this beast, plus the 3 that were plucked out. (Vandals, Heruli, Goths)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Middle Ages, when the power of the pope was more pronounced, the title was more plausible. Today, the political power of the Pope has long since waned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

See the quote above from "The Pope a Scandal and a Mystery"..

There you see MODERN claims for the Pope that fit 2Thess 2 which was the primary text used by the reformers to identify the Pope as Antichrist.

The problem is 2Thess 2 never uses the term "antichrist".

I don't think the issue is that the Popes no longer MAKE those claims as we see from the recent Papal book.