The following is from a booklet by Dr. Ronald Cooke, “The Effect of the Jesuit Eschatologies on America Today.” from the chapter entitled “The Thesis of the Jesuit Francisco Ribera”. Whether you accept the early Protestant Reformation Reformer’s views or not, the fact is to a man they believed the prophecies of Daniel, Revelation, and II Thessalonians chapter two about the Antichrist, are all fulfilled in the office of the papacy of the Church of Rome.

Martin Luther: “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the seed of the true and real antichrist. I owe the Pope no other obedience than that I owe to antichrist.”

John Calvin “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 Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 2 are not capable to any other interpretation than that which applies them to the papacy.”

Charles Spurgeon “It is the bound and duty of every Christian to pray against this 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.”

The Three Methods of Interpreting Prophecy

There are three methods of interpreting prophecy –the Praeterist, the Futurist and the Historical (Also called the Historicist or continuous. For 40 years I held views based on Futurism but after I hit my 60s I became an Historicist).

The Praeterist maintains that the prophecies in Revelation (and Daniel) have already been fulfilled.

The Futurist interpreters refer to events which are yet to come.

The Historical or Continuous expositors believe the Revelation a progressive history of the church from the first century to the end of time.

So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men (during the Protestant Reformation who held the historicist view), that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.

Accordingly, toward the close of the century of the Reformation, two of the most learned (Jesuit) doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavoring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men’s minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the papal system. The Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the preterist method of interpretation,… and thus endeavored to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy.

“On the other hand, the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the papal power by bringing out the futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly, not to the career of the Papacy, but to some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the founder of the futurist system of modern times.

It is a matter for deep regret that those who advocate the futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist.

The Thesis of the Jesuit Francisco Ribera

Ribera wrote his commentary of the book of Revelation in 1590. In it he repudiated the idea that Antichrist was the Papacy. He set forth Antichrist as a man who would not appear until the very end of the age.

In the decade of the 1820’s two professors, S. R. Maitland of Oxford University and James Todd of Dublin University, resurrected Ribera’s thesis and both men put out a series of books supporting the Jesuit and repudiating the Protestant Reformers.

Ribera’s thesis had laid dormant for almost 250 years. It lay in Oxford University, “a time bomb waiting to explode” as Colin Standish said. (Dr. Colin Standish is a former president of Hartland Institute located in Rapidan, Virginia.)

Well Maitland and Todd saw to it that the bomb went off just as the Tractarians (also known as the Oxford Movement which began in 1833 of High Church members of the Church of England which eventually developed into Anglo-Catholicism. ) were beginning to launch their attack upon the Anglican Church. The works of Maitland and Todd certainly aided the cause of the Oxford Romanizers (people who support Roman Catholic Church doctrines). And when they detonated their bomb, it caused a fall out of such magnitude as to completely neutralize the teaching of the Protestant Reformers on Antichrist in Bible believing circles to this day.

Maitland was the librarian of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so he had some power and prestige to help spread his writings throughout Anglicanism and the English speaking world. His chief works on Antichrist consisted of, “An Inquiry into the Grounds of the Prophetic Period in Daniel and St. John” (1826), and “A Second Inquiry” (1829). He also wrote, “An Attempt of Elucidate the Prophecies concerning Anti Christ” (1830).

James Todd, was born in Dublin Ireland in 1805. He became librarian at the University of Dublin. He also wrote several works on the Antichrist. His main works were, “Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of Daniel and St. Paul”, and, “Six Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Apocalypse of St. John”. These works all repudiated the Protestant position and promoted the Jesuit position of the identity of the Antichrist. They directed their readers AWAY from the Papacy to an unknown man. They surely could not have hoped for a more favorable reception than they received. It was almost total.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: