Which popes have been historically identified as the Antichrist and which reformers made those claims?
Executive summary
From the 11th century through the Reformation and into later Protestant confessions, many critics—especially Protestant reformers—identified the papacy or particular popes with the Antichrist; prominent names repeatedly attached to that label include Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and earlier figures like Arnulf of Reims (first recorded) and proto‑Reformers such as John Wycliffe and Jan Hus [1] [2] [3]. That judgment was institutionalized in confessions (e.g., Smalkald Articles, Westminster Confession) and remained common among Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptists and Anglicans though it waned in mainstream Protestantism by the 20th century [4] [5].
1. Roots of the accusation: medieval rivalries and Arnulf’s charge
The earliest recorded instance linking a pope with “Antichrist” comes from Arnulf of Reims in the 10th century, used polemically in disputes over papal authority; this rhetorical precedent fed later medieval and Reformation critiques of papal power [1]. Arnulf’s language framed the pope not as a remote prophetic figure but as a present, corrupting force “sitting in the temple of God,” a formulation later adopted and amplified by Reformers [1].
2. Reformers who named the pope: Luther, Calvin, Knox and others
Sixteenth‑century Reformers explicitly identified the pope or the papacy with Antichrist. Martin Luther called the papacy “the kingdom of Babylon and of the true Antichrist” and repeatedly labeled the pope “the very Antichrist” in works such as Babylonian Captivity of the Church [2] [6]. John Calvin devoted sections of his Institutes to the claim that the pope embodied Antichrist characteristics [2]. John Knox likewise wrote that the pope was “that man of sin” and “very antichrist himself” [3]. The historical record shows similar language from Thomas Cranmer, John Wycliffe and Jan Hus among others [2] [3] [7].
3. Confessional codification: from polemic to doctrine
Reformation polemics moved into confessional theology. Lutheran writings (Smalkald Articles), the Westminster Confession and other Reformed and Puritan documents explicitly state that the pope is “that Antichrist,” turning a polemical identification into a doctrinal marker for many Protestant bodies [4] [3]. Historians note that Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptists and Methodists included such references in confessions and catecheses [5].
4. Interpretive frameworks: historicism and its consequences
The Reformers used a historicist reading of Daniel and Revelation that treated prophetic symbols as present historical institutions—not only future individuals—so the papacy fit the “man of sin” and beast imagery [2] [1]. This hermeneutic made the office of the pope, rather than one future leader, the target of Antichrist interpretations—a position that critics and later Catholic apologists have called retrospective or polemical [2] [8].
5. Dissenting and evolving views: Catholic rebuttals and modern shifts
Catholic writers and modern ecumenical scholars reject and call the charge “anti‑Catholic rhetoric,” arguing early Fathers did not identify the Roman bishop as Antichrist and that the charge served polemical ends during confessional conflict [8]. By the 20th century many Protestant theologians and denominations reduced or removed the papacy‑as‑Antichrist claim from confessions; scholars say its prominence declined as eschatological frameworks changed and ecumenical relations developed [4] [9].
6. Who else? Specific popes and ad hoc accusations
Beyond institutional claims, individuals across history have named particular popes Antichrist in polemics or political dispute—medieval emperors and later polemicists traded the label as a weapon [10]. Modern fringe sources and some conservative Protestant ministers still apply the term to recent popes (e.g., claims about Pope Francis), but mainstream scholarship treats those as continuations of older polemical patterns rather than accepted historical judgments [11] [12] [13].
7. What sources say and what they do not
Available sources document a long chain of Reformers and confessions—Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wycliffe, Hus, the Westminster Confession and Smalkald Articles—identifying the papacy with Antichrist [2] [3] [4]. Sources explicitly argue both for (Reformation-era confessions and Protestant sites) and against (Catholic apologetics, modern scholars) that identification, showing the claim is interpretive and historically situated [8] [4]. Sources do not provide a single agreed list of “which popes” were individually canonized as Antichrist beyond polemical naming in disputes; specific medieval examples exist, but a comprehensive roster of individual popes officially declared Antichrist by major bodies is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this summary uses the provided sources only; deeper archival research would specify individual medieval accusations and trace when specific Protestant bodies dropped the claim. The competing narratives—confessional Protestant assertion versus Catholic rebuttal and modern scholarly reevaluation—are all present in the source set [4] [8] [2].