The Reformers Reveals the Identity of the Anti-Christ

“Reformers Reveal the Beast of Revelation 13 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7.”

Most reformers spoke of the papacy as antichrist. The papacy has since that time, received it’s deadly wound by France in 1798 (Rev. 13:5,10) and is again becoming popular and powerful just as the prophecies predicted! (Rev. 13:3)

Martin LutherMartin Luther (1483-1546) [founder of the Lutheran Church]
“nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist….For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197

John CalvinJohn Calvin (1509-1564) [founder of the Presbyterian Church]
“I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist–I deny him to be the successor of Peter..I deny him to be the head of the church.” “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt…I shall briefly show that (Pauls words in 2 Thessalonians 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy” John Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 219,220. John Calvin, Institutes.

John Wesley (1703-1791) [founder of the Methodist Church]
“He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped… claiming the highest power, and highest honor… claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Albert Close, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms,
London: Thynne and Co., 1917, p. 110.

King James (1566-1625) [Authorized the King James Version of the Bible] “The faithfull praiseth God for the Popes destruction, and their deliverance,” and for “the plagues which are to light on him and his followers.” “The Pope by his Pardons makes merchandise of the soules of men: Heaven and the Saints reioyce at his destruction, albiet the earth and the worldlings lament for the same”
James I, Paraphrase, in Workes, pp. 47, 57


John Wycliffe - Learn more about him.John Wyclif (1324-1384) [Completed the 1st English translation of the Bible] “Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws.” (Daniel 7:8, 25 quoted) …”For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head.” Translated from Wyclif’s, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3 pp. 262, 263

William TyndaleWilliam Tyndale (1484-1536) [1st translator of the Bible from the Greek] “The pope’s forbidding matrimony, and to eat of meats created of God for man’s use, which is devilish doctrine by Paul’s prophecy,… are tokens good enough that he is the right antichrist, and his doctrine sprung of the devil.” 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, in Works, vol. 3, p. 171 Visithttp://www.williamtyndale.com for more information on William Tyndale.

 John KnoxJohn Knox (1505-1572) [Scottish Reformer] He preached that Romish traditions and ceremonies should be abolished along with “that tyranny which the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church” and that he should be acknowledged as “the son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” In a public challenge he declared: “As for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted… I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head therof, called the Pope, to be the man of sin of whom the apostle speaketh.” Knox, The Zurich Letters, p.199


Philipp Melanchthon
Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) [Associate of Martin Luther]
“Since it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very Antichrist. Likewise in 2 Thess. II, Paul clearly says that the man of sin will rule in the church exalting himself above the worship of God, etc.”
Translated from Melanchthon, Disputationes, No. 56, “De Matrimonio”,
in Opera (Corpus Reformatorum), vol. 12 col. 535


Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) [great Swiss reformer quoted on Dec. 28, 1524] “I know that in it works the might and power of the Devil, that is, of the Antichrist… the Papacy has to be abolished… But by no other means can it be more thoroughly routed than by the word of God (2 Thessalonians 2), because as soon as the world receives this in the right way, it will turn away from the Pope without compulsion.” Principle Works of Zwingli, Vol. 7, p. 135.


Volume 2.2
The Challenge

 

The following is an excerpt from Envoy Magazine‘s March/April 98 cover article, Pope Fiction, by Patrick Madrid. The highlighted text is of special interest, and the core of the subsequent discussion.
(NOTE: Javascript must be enabled on your browser to see the highlighting).


Fiction 5
The pope is the beast spoken of in Revelation 13. Verse 1 says that he wears crowns and has “blasphemous names” written on his head. Verse 18 says that the numerical value of his name adds up to 666. The pope’s official title in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei (Vicar Son of God). If you add that up using Roman numerals, you get 666. The pope’s tiara is emblazoned with this title, formed by diamonds and other jewels.

I wasn’t very good at math in school, but even I can follow this argument and run the numbers well enough to show it’s bogus. (Besides, answering this question is apologetics at its most fun!) The charge that the pope is the beast of Revelation 13, because his title adds up to 666, is especially popular with Seventh-Day Adventists, but it’s also widely repeated in some Protestant circles.

Vicarius Filii Dei does have the mathematical value of 666 in Latin. Here’s how it works. Like many ancient languages, such as Greek and Hebrew, some Latin letters are also used for numbers: I = 1, V = 5, X = 10, L = 50, C = 100, D = 500 and M = 1000. The letter “u” is rendered as V and the letter “w,” which doesn’t exist in the Latin alphabet, would be rendered as VV. So this title would read in Latin as VICARIVS FILII DEI.

When calculating the value of a name or word, letters that don’t have a numerical value are ignored. For example, drop out the no-value letters in my name, PATRICK MADRID, and you come up with 2102 — 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1000 (m) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) = 2102. By the way, this is one reason why, as far as I know, no one has yet accused me of being in league with the anti-Christ. The numbers just don’t add up.

But in the case of VICARIVS FILII DEI, they do add up to 666. Isolate the numbers and this is what you get: 5 (v) + 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1 (i) + 5 (V) + 1 (i) + 50 (L) + 1 (i) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) = 666.

But there are problems with this. The first is that Vicarius Filii Dei, or “Vicar of the Son of God,” is not now, nor has it ever been, a title of the bishop of Rome. The second problem is that virtually no one, including many unsuspecting lay Catholics, knows that this papal “title” is a fabrication. To an untrained ear, it sounds enough like one of the pope’s real titles, Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ), to pass the test. Unfortunately for those who traffic in this particular piece of pope fiction, the real title, Vicarius Christi, adds up to only a measly 214, not the infernal 666. In fact, none of the pope’s official titles, such as Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God), Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff), or Successor Petri (Successor of Peter), will add up to 666. That’s why you never see any of them used by anti-Catholics.

If the person making this claim disputes these facts, ask him to furnish even one example of a papal decree, ecclesiastical letter, conciliar statement, or any other official Catholic document in which the pope calls himself or is referred to as the “Vicar of the Son of God.” He won’t be able to find one, because none exist. Vicarius Filii Dei has never been a title of the pope.

MAY 1, 2009: An official ecclesiastical letter of Pope Leo IX that uses Vicarius Filii Dei has been found!
JUNE 25, 2009: Two official Apostolic Constitutions of Pope Paul VI that use Vicarius Filii Dei discovered!
See VICARIUS FILII DEI 666.

Poof! That part was easy, but some people, especially Seventh-Day Adventists, will ignore the evidence (or lack of it)and hold tenaciously to the notion that “Vicar of the Son of God” is an official papal title and therefore identifies the pope as the Beast of Revelation. What else can be said in response?

Using the same math exercise we did above, point out that the name of the woman who started the Seventh-Day Adventist church, Ellen Gould White, also adds up to 666 in Latin. (L + L + V +D + V + V + I = 666). Then ask if this proves that she is the Beast. I can assure you the answer won’t be “yes.” If the answer is “no,” ask how this numbers game could possibly prove the pope or anyone else is the Beast. If you’re answered with silence, it’s a good bet that you’ve made some progress with the person.

The main fact to impress on someone who uses this argument is that a papal title had to be invented, one that could produce the magic number, in order to give this argument legs.

But we’re not quite finished cutting it off at the knees. The charge that the pope is the Beast because he wears a crown, and Revelation 13:1 says the Beast wears crowns and has “blasphemous names” written on his head, must also be answered. This we can do more quickly.

Since about the year 708, many popes have worn at non-liturgical ceremonial events a special papal crown called a tiara, but the stylized beehive-shaped papal crown of three diadems that we have come to know as a tiara emerged only in the early 14th century. Although it was customary for tiaras to be encrusted with jewels and precious ornaments, there is no evidence — no statue, bust, painting, drawing or even written description of any of the many tiaras that were crafted — that any papal tiara ever had the name or title of a pope emblazoned on it.

Wrong. An inscribed tiara of Pius IX recently completed a museum tour of the U. S.

This is significant, because there have been medieval and Renaissance popes whose extravagant vanity prodded them to have lavishly ornamented, jewel-encrusted tiaras made for themselves. And we possess paintings and statues and other representations of them produced during their lifetimes that show these tiaras (we even possess some of the actual tiaras). If any popes in history would have been tempted to succumb to the bad taste of spelling out “Vicarius Filii Dei” in diamonds across the front of their tiaras, these men would have — but they didn’t. No pope did. One particular anti-Catholic tract I’ve seen shows a plain metal tiara with Vicarius Filii Dei written in diamonds across it. But it was a drawing — not a photograph of a museum piece or even a photo of a painting of a tiara.

It had to be drawn, of course, because the “666 papal crown”— as with all the other pope fictions—has only ever existed in the minds of those who perpetuate this fantasy.

23 September 98

An open letter to Mr. Patrick Madrid and Envoy Magazine,

In  your cover story Pope Fiction, in the March/April 1998 issue, you make the following statement under Fiction 5:

“If the person making this claim disputes these facts, ask him to furnish even one example of a papal decree, ecclesiastical letter, conciliar statement, or any other official Catholic document in which the pope calls himself or is referred to as the ‘Vicar of the Son of God.’ He won’t be able to find one, because none exist. Vicarius Filii Dei has never been a title of the pope.”

I accept your challenge.  I would like to offer my article at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/666.htm in response. I personally have Lucius Ferraris’ Prompta Bibliotheca, 1858 Paris edition, a Catholic theological encyclopedia, in which the title VICARIUS FILII DEI appears in volume 5, column 1828, under “PAPA” (Pope), “Article II.” I have scanned the item and it appears in my article. Prompta Bibliotheca, according to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, is “a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge” and “will ever remain a precious mine of information” and is quoted frequently as an authoritative Catholic source.

Vicarius Filii Dei also appeared repeatedly in Catholic canon law for hundreds of years (Anselm’s, Cardinal Deusdedit’s, and Gratian’s Decretum also known as Concordia Discordantium Canonum), in quotes of the Donation of Constantine which contained the title and was considered authentic by the Church for many hundreds of years, having been cited by as many as 10 Popes as proof of their temporal authority. One 1879 edition of Corpus Juris Canonici containing VICARIUS FILII DEI is presented in my article.

In “Crossing The Threshold of Hope”, by Pope John Paul II: First Chapter: “The Pope”: A Scandal and a Mystery, page 3, you will find:

“The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity”.

If you directly translate “represents the Son of God” into Latin, the official language of the Church, you get “Vicarius Filii Dei”.

In my article I present the above and other evidence to show conclusively that VICARIUS FILII DEI is not a fraud, and that it was indeed used by the Catholic Church for well over 600 years. In fairness, I have included a link to your article from mine so that my readers can see a Catholic viewpoint on the matter. If you are so sure that VICARIUS FILII DEI is a fabrication, then I challenge you, in reciprocal fairness, to include a link to my article from yours to show the historical evidence to your readership.

(I have posted this email to you on my initial web index page and will be happy to append any response of yours to it.)

Respectfully,

Michael Scheifler

 

Is Now In CALGARY, ALBERTA CANADA
October 2 – 30, 2009

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: