Our Readers' Opinions
November 2, 2007
Has Salt departed from Catholic teaching?


Editor: I am once more grateful for the opportunity to share with the reading public on the topic of the antichrist, which SALT and I have been debating these past months.

SALT’s point concerning the word ‘anti’ would be totally accurate, if we are dealing with English words.{{more}}

However, we are considering a Greek word – ‘antikristos.’ In the Greek, the word ‘anti’ is defined thus, “a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):— for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.” [Ref# 473 – Strong’s Greek Bible Dictionary – Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D. 1890]

Notice some of the meanings given: ‘instead or because of,’ ‘in the room of,’ ‘substitution.’

Now notice SALT’s charge, ‘Mr Rogers takes great pains to explain that the term anti means substitute. This is yet another gross inaccuracy…’

Let SALT take issue with the Greek language and the learned Dr James Strong, not me.

Incidentally, the papacy has coined the word ‘antipope’ which uses ‘anti’ in the same context.

According to the Catholic EWTN website, “Anyone, therefore, who claims to be Pope while a duly elected Pope is living and has not resigned is, ipso facto, an Antipope…” [http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]

LOGICALLY then, anyone who claims to be Christ, a substitute of Christ, a vicar of Christ, anyone who claims the titles of Christ, the office of Christ, when Christ has not resigned that office, is, ipso facto, ANTICHRIST.

SALT went on to state, ‘the Christian World has always understood the antichrist to be the Devil.’

SALT has conveniently departed from Catholic teaching this time around, as the Catholic Encyclopedia tells him, “the individual person of antichrist will not be a demon, as some of the ancient writers believed; nor will he be the person of the devil incarnated in the human nature of antichrist.” [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm]

Moral sin

Nevertheless, the ‘christian world’ that SALT refers to doesn’t share his view.

Martin Luther is quoted as saying, “I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.” [D’Aubigné, book 6, ch. 9]

We also read of reformer John Wycliffe declaring, “The pope is the chief antichrist, for he himself falsely pretends that he is the immediate vicar of Christ, and most resembling Him in life…” [‘Ecclesiastical Empire,’ page 619 by Alonzo Trevier Jones, published 1901]

SALT also said that the Catholic people do not regard the pope as replacing Christ. I am happy that they do not, for it is mortal sin to regard the pope as such. There are many Catholics I suppose who are unaware of the papacy’s unbiblical claims.

SALT raised the issue of ‘Vicarius Filii Dei,’ which means ‘Vicar of the Son of God.’

SALT indicated that the letters of this Roman title add up to 666. This title appears in several Catholic publications, for example, ‘1879 Catholic Canon Law (Corpus Juris Canonici);’ ‘The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ’ by Henry Edward Manning D.D; and ‘Prompta Bibliotheca’ Vol. VI, pg 43 (1890) by Lucius Ferraris.

In the November 15, 1914 and April 18th, 1915 editions of the Catholic publication ‘Our Sunday Visitor,’ it is positively stated that ‘Vicarius Filii Dei’ is a papal title.

The papacy now being aware that this title in its original Roman tongue adds up to 666, now strenuously denies that this was ever an ‘official’ title of the pope.

Why would the papacy boast of being vicar of Christ [Vicarius Christi], yet deny being vicar of the Son of God [Vicarius Filii Dei]? Both titles are one and the same, unless maybe the papacy’s Christ is not the Son of God.

It is obvious that the papacy is actively attempting to remove from itself an identifying mark given by scripture.

SALT helps reinforce this by alleging that the letters of the name Ellen Gould White add up to 666.

Antichrist power

Notwithstanding that her name does not have Roman origin and ‘W’ was not originally a Roman letter, however, let us say that this is the case. Why then didn’t the Adventists seek to change Mrs. White’s name, since it can be shown to add up to 666?

Obviously, it is because the scriptures do not identify Mrs. White as antichrist!

However, there are more than twenty identifying points in the scriptures which describe the antichrist power, and one can see that the papacy matches them point for point. Therefore, it becomes necessary to deny the title Vicarius Filii Dei, which is just one of those points.

SALT’s comment on Mary being ‘Ever-Virgin’ is another clear-cut example.

The scripture clearly tells us that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born, thus she ceased to be a virgin. We read, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” [Matthew 1:24-25 – KJV] Verse 25 is rendered in different translations as follows:

“He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.” [International Standard Version]

“He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.” [God’s Word Translation]

“But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” [NIV]

If SALT cannot accept such a simple truth, and would boldly assert that Mary is ‘Ever Virgin’, then can he/she ever accept that the papacy is antichrist?

Grace and Peace to you, SALT. May you trust in the sole mediation of our Great High Priest Jesus Christ, pray to the Father in Jesus’ name alone, and keep the Commandments of Yahweh – not the traditions of men.

Maurice Rogers