From the very beginnings of the Christian Church, the end-time manifestation of the ‘Antichrist’ became a fixed element of Christian tradition. The term itself has its origin in the New Testament (1Jn 2,18-19.22), where there are a number of passages dealing with this expectation.1 These scattered references were later brought together and developed by the Church Fathers, so that, by the third century, it was widely taught that the Antichrist would be a human figure, a person, who would rule the world on behalf of Satan for a brief period at the end of history, and that he would persecute the people of God.2 His reign would be brought to an end by the intervention of the Lord himself, at his second coming.
In the course of time, however, the Antichrist tradition became so embellished with bizarre and fantastic speculations that its real and historical significance was obscured. It is not surprising then, that in modern times, scholars have come to consider the Antichrist tradition as a ‘myth’, or a ‘legend’, with little or no relation to future, end-historical events.3 In the Catholic Church, it is rare to find a priest, biblical scholar or theologian who will affirm the early Church’s teaching on Antichrist as a person. Instead, the ‘Antichrist’ is explained in a collective way, as the collection of people through whom Satan has acted, and continues to act, throughout history.4 The expectation of Antichrist as a person has all but disappeared and those who continue to hold this teaching are guided, not by Scripture, but by popular visionaries.
It seems to have been the renowned Abbott Joachim of Fiore, writing in the 12th century, who started a tradition that the Antichrist would be a leader of the Catholic Church, a “Pope”. He wrote: “Toward the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See.” The Protestants seized on this tradition and, by applying it to the contemporary Pope, made it one of the slogans justifying their separation from the Church of Rome. Ever since, many are the Protestants who have identified every Pope as Antichrist and the Church of Rome as Babylon, as described in the Book of Revelation. The adoption of Joachim’s Papal Antichrist “prophecy” by the Protestants, however, has not deterred many Catholics from believing and maintaining this tradition. In fact, it has received a huge boost, in modern times, from visionaries issuing prophecies about the end of history in the name of Mary, mother of Jesus. Perhaps the best known of this kind was recorded at La Salette, in France, in the 19th century, by Melanie Calvat: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist. The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” Since then, and especially towards the end of the 20th century, there has been a steady stream of Marian prophecies, issued by various visionaries, repeating the same formula: Maria Valtorta, Don Stefano Gobbi (for his “Movimento Sacerdotale Mariano”), Ms. Vassula Ryden, and others. It is a view that seems to be associated with a triumphalist form of Millennialism, the start of a Catholic “Era of Peace”,5 which can also be traced back to the Blessed Joachim of Fiore and his “Third Age – the Age of the Spirit”.
With such a respected provenance and wide circulation, it is not surprising that the belief that the Antichrist will be a future Pope has gained such a persistent foothold in the Church, but respected provenance and wide circulation do not make it true. Can we really accept that one day, sooner or later, the Pope, who preaches eternal salvation, will be replaced in his office by the Antichrist, who takes his followers with him to eternal condemnation? Such a flip in the leadership of the world’s oldest institution seems far-fetched to say the least, but is nevertheless taken seriously by a great many faithful people.
At this point, it is worth reflecting on the effects and consequences of tolerating this highly contentious prophecy in the Church.
1. It casts doubt on the very words of Jesus:
Shortly after the commissioning of Peter as head of the Church, Jesus goes on to assure his disciples that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against her” (Mt 16,18). The gates of Hades and the netherworld will never be able to resist the Church’s saving mission. This assurance would be empty if there is ever a time, in her history, during which the Church’s saving mission is led by the Antichrist, for, as the embodiment of Satan, the Antichrist is the archenemy of the Church’s saving mission. This prophecy works to sow doubt in the words of this promise of Jesus Christ.
2. It casts doubt and suspicion on each and every Pope:
Since nobody knows the time of the end of history, nor the time immediately before the end when the Antichrist will be revealed, there is a temptation to regard every Pope with the suspicion that he may be the ultimate Antichrist. His words are weighed and his actions are scrutinized for indications this way or that. Mentally infected by this prophecy, the Catholic faithful may always have to cope with this nagging doubt about their leader. Furthermore, if not this Pope, then maybe the next one. Can such a person ever feel comfortable inside the Church?
3. It casts doubt on the entire leadership of the Church (the Papal electors):
The Pope is elected by a process involving more than a hundred cardinals, themselves chosen from among the bishops in all the world. If the Antichrist is going to take over the leadership of the Catholic Church, he will first have to be elected by these cardinals. To believe that these leading churchmen could one day elect Antichrist to the throne of the Successor of Peter induces a baseless lack of faith in entire leadership of the Catholic Church and, along with it, a questioning of obedience and loyalty. Taken to the extreme, this “prophecy” could be a significant factor in the growth of schismatic movements within the Church.
4. It deters people from joining the Church:
People coming to the faith from outside, or from other denominations or religions, may be shaken and deterred from their desire to join the Catholic Church if they ever become convinced that Antichrist would sooner or later be at her head. They may rightly question themselves about joining an organization with the intention of gaining eternal salvation, but which, at some point in the future, would put themselves, or their descendents, in close proximity to the prince of eternal condemnation. Those who are outside the faith would rightly be confirmed in their prejudice against such an organization.
5. It maybe a factor impeding ecumenical efforts:
We have already mentioned the role of the Papal Antichrist “prophecy” in the separation of the Protestant “Reform” Churches. It is worthwhile asking whether this belief may not be acting, even up to the present time, in maintaining this separation. Similarly, may it not be operating, consciously or even unconsciously, in the hearts of those members of the Orthodox Churches whose loathing for the Catholic Church knows no limits and permits of no compromise? If so, then it is really not going too far to suggest that this prophecy is contributing to the continued failure to restore full communion between Rome and the Orthodox Churches, especially since the main impediment concerns the role of the Papal office.
This short reflection on the Papal Antichrist “prophecy”, within and outside the Church, reveals a troubling list of actual, and potential, negative effects: it sows doubt about the words of Christ, about the Pope, about the leadership of the Church and about the permanence of her salvific mission. It may therefore be a factor deterring people from joining the Church, and confirming outsiders in their prejudice against her. It maybe at the base of the failure of ecumenical efforts to repair division and restore Church unity. In a few words, this prophecy is nothing more than a piece of diabolical propaganda that causes doubt, division and confusion in the Church. It can and should be compared to a “curse”.
Having explored the nature and extent of the problem caused by the Papal Antichrist “prophecy”, there is no alternative but to refute and utterly reject it. Instead of relying on the mediaeval speculations of Joachim of Fiore and a long list of popular visionaries, there must be a “return to the sources” in the New Testament, and to the teaching of the Early Church. Without doubt, the results of returning to the sources will allow the religious authorities to expel this “curse” from the hearts and minds of the faithful.
To those who believed that the Day of the Lord had already come, St. Paul wrote: “…that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes himself and exalts himself against every so-called god or object, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming” (2Thess 2,3-8).
In this passage, St. Paul unambiguously describes the Antichrist figure, whom he calls ‘the man of lawlessness’ and ‘the son of perdition’, as a person who will reveal himself by taking his seat in the temple of God. In St. Paul’s mind, this was the renovated Temple in Jerusalem, which was rapidly nearing completion under King Herod and generating a great deal of messianic fervour among the Jewish people. For St. Paul, therefore, the Antichrist was going to be welcomed by those Jews who had rejected Jesus Christ because they were expecting their messiah to be a successful military leader who would restore their political and religious sovereignty. For a time this was being prevented by the Roman occupation of their Temple, City and country, but clearly St. Paul foresees that this would eventually be withdrawn, or defeated, thus allowing the ‘man of lawlessness’ to be revealed. The context of his appearance, according to this prophecy of St Paul, is the false messianic expectation of the Jews.6
The Antichrist prophecy in the ‘Little Apocalypse’ of the Gospels of Matthew (Mt 24,1-25,46) and Mark (Mk 13,1-37) alludes cryptically to the coming of the Antichrist with an expression that recalls ‘the little horn’ of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 7-12): ‘the abomination of desolation standing in a holy place’. Again, as in St. Paul’s 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, the ‘holy place’ refers to the Second Temple in Jerusalem. This is going to be the place where the Antichrist will establish his idolatrous form of worship.
The most detailed prophecy of the Antichrist, however, is given by St. John in the Book of Revelation. In this prophecy, the Antichrist is described as the personal representative of all diabolical power and authority (Rev 13,1-4) – the embodiment of Satan. His personal appearance is heralded by the murder of two Christian witnesses in Jerusalem, at the end of their prophetic mission (11,7-13). He then goes on to rule briefly over the whole world and subject the faithful to a severe persecution (13,1-9). His reign is consolidated by the establishment of a personality cult, which is forcefully promoted by an assistant called the false prophet. Those who refuse to participate in this cult are outlawed, or killed as martyrs who will attain heaven (13,11-17; 15,2). On the other hand, those who do participate in the cult will suffer eternal condemnation (14,9-11). The Antichrist’s reign is terminated in a war won by Christ at his second coming, and the final judgment follows quickly (19,11-21).
There is one sign described in the text which indicates that the idolatrous personality cult of the Antichrist described in Rev 13,11-17 will be based on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, as in the other Antichrist prophecies mentioned above.7 His false prophet “performs great signs such that he even makes fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men” (Rev 13,13). In the history of the ancient Israelite cult, the sign of fire falling from heaven appeared at the consecration of a new altar and indicated divine confirmation (Lev 9,24; 1Chr 21,26; 2Chr 7,1; 2Macc 1,18-36). So the false prophet’s imitation of this sign, in an impressive but inauthentic way, implies his participation in the dedication of a new altar connected to the ancient Israelite cult.8 This act certainly entails the reconstruction of the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Despite occupying the most sacred site of the ancient temple in Jerusalem (cf. 2Thess 2,4; Mt 24,15; Mk 13,14), the cult established and enforced by the false prophet is nevertheless directed towards the worship of a false messiah (the first beast) and the source of his authority, the devil (Rev 13,2-3.8.15).9
Having considered the scriptural basis for understanding the Antichrist as the false fulfilment of the Jewish messianic expectation, based in a rebuilt third temple in Jerusalem, it is worthwhile considering the evidence, also in the Book of Revelation, that tells us this does not occur in Rome. In this prophecy, Rome is called Babylon and at some point during his reign, the ruler we have identified with Antichrist makes an alliance with 10 kings and, in accordance with the will of God, they destroy Babylon completely and forever (Rev 17,16-17).10 The Antichrist would not destroy Rome if Rome were the seat and centre of his authority. This is surely sufficient evidence that the Antichrist is not based in Rome.
Furthermore, the text says that, before Rome is destroyed, God says “come out of her my people” (Rev 18,4) and subsequently there is no mourning for loss of life (Rev 18,9-19). This tells us that all the people in the part of Rome that is destroyed obey God’s call and leave, indicating also that they are all God’s people. So even though the historic centre of the Catholic Church can be identified with Babylon in the Book Revelation, there are no grounds whatsoever for identifying the Pope, or the leadership of the Church, with Antichrist. On the contrary, they are all God’s people.
We can ask ourselves how the doctrine of Antichrist changed in the 12th century, with the interpretations of the Blessed Joachim of Fiore. The Antichrist was now going to reveal himself in the Papal See, in Rome, and not in a rebuilt temple on the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem. It is not difficult to understand why this change took place. It happened at a time when the Temple Mount was in the hands of the Catholic Crusaders, when the Jewish population of Europe and the Middle East were vigorously persecuted and repressed. It was inconceivable that they would ever recover and be able to rebuild their temple and declare their own version of the messiah. A reinterpretation of the prophecies was called for, and these were provided by the Blessed Joachim of Fiore. But let us understand his interpretations as a product of his time, and not as the eternal Word of God. Soon after he was writing, the Catholic Church began her gradual retreat from the Holy Land, and in the present day the Jews have regained their control over the Temple Mount. It would be wise to return to the sources and understand the prophecies in their original context and clarity.
John Ben-Daniel
Jerusalem
Ascension 2014