Antichrist

ANTICHRIST. - Adversary of Christ who, at the end of time, will seduce many Christians with satanic prodigies and cunning, and will finally be annihilated by Christ at his parousia (v.). The term ἀντίφωνος ("anti-Messiah"), which occurs four times in the New Testament, implies the twofold sense of the prefix ἀντί: replacement (as in Philo's ἀντίθεος, "impious"; whereas in Homer ἀντίθεος has a laudatory sense: "almost divine, like God"), and opposition (as in ἀντίθεος, ἀντίθιος). The A. is the capital enemy of Christ, whose dignity and dominion he usurps, or attempts to usurp.

The concept, made precise in the Pauline and Johannine writings, is only in embryo in the Old Testament. From the "protoevangelium" (Gen. 3:15) onward, the religious struggle between the Messiah at the head of the righteous and Satan with his satellites is outlined.

The Prophets highlight the hostility of the Gentiles, whose kings represent peoples rather than individuals (cf. Is. 34): "Pharaoh" is the first enemy king conquered by Yahweh; there follow the king of Babylon (Is. 14:4-17; 21:1-10), Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Pompey. These powerful enemies of Yahweh, whom the Messiah King will rout (Ps. 2 and 109), when transposed onto the eschatological plane become types of the A. From the time of the exile, in the prophetic descriptions of the "end of times," the aggression and defeat of the enemy of God dominate, and the notion of him becomes increasingly precise as opposition to the theocracy of Israel conceived as the Kingdom of God. Ezekiel already traces the features of the A. in the oracles against Tyre (28:2, 9) and against the various uncircumcised kings (32), and in the allegory of Gog, the ferocious assailant who is annihilated with his own on the mountains of Israel (38-39), he gives the first "personification of the A." (E. Tobac, Les prophètes d'Israël, II, Malines [1921], p. 417). Joel (3) and Zach. (1:7-14; 5:5-11; 12; 14:1-19) reinforce the antithesis between the two kingdoms, divine and satanic: the victory over the enemy fills the great "day of Yahweh"; but they do not name a leader of the coalition of the powers of evil.

Daniel proposes as the typical monster of iniquity Antiochus

IV Epiphanes (7:8; 8:9-14, 23-26; [9:27]; 11:21-45), who by flattery and violence brings about the height of impiety foretold for the end of times. J. Knabenhauer (Comment. in Dan. proph., Paris 1897, pp. 192, 267) maintains, citing the authority of many Fathers, that Dan. 7:8 and 9:27 speak of the A.; on the opposite side, S. R. Driver (The Book of Daniel, Cambridge 1912, p. xcvii) and J. A. Montgomery (The Book of Daniel, Edinburgh 1927, p. 83) affirm that it is entirely inaccurate to speak of a Danielic A. In reality, Dan. typically predicts, in Antiochus IV, the A. (J. Götzberger, Das Buch Daniel, Bonn 1929, p. 93; J. B. Pelt, Histoire de l'A. T., II, 7th ed., Paris 1925, pp. 357-83). By now the picture of the eschatological opposition to the Kingdom of God and of the future enemy king of God will be modeled on the Danielic schema: the enemy of Israel increasingly takes shape as the enemy of God, until in the New Testament God and the anti-God (the Messiah and the anti-Messiah) remain alone on the field.

In the Jewish "apocalypses," meanwhile, the political aspect of the enemy of God remains, he being the enemy of the Jews, that is, Rome, with which the pagan world is by now identified. The Roman oppressor (Pompey) in the Psalms of Solomon 2 and 17 is par excellence "the sinner," "the impious one," indeed the "dragon." In IV Esd. 5:6, "he shall reign whom the inhabitant of the earth does not expect": this undesirable one seems to be the A. (B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch, Leipzig 1924, p. 26); cf. Apoc. Baruch Syr., 36 and 40. In the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (Levi 18:12) and the Assumption of Moses 8, the anti-Messianic struggle is unleashed by Beliar; in III Sibyll. 63-76, Beliar brings back Nero. Nero redivivus (cf. Tacitus, Hist., I, 2; II, 8; Suetonius, Nero, 40, 57) appears in IV Sibyll. 109-14, 137-45; V Sibyll. 1-51, 215-246, 361 ff.; VIII Sibyll. 146-58; in the Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-18, Beliar is incarnate in a king (Nero). From these writings R. H. Charles deduces that around A.D. 90 the myths of Beliar and of Nero "reversurus" merge.

It is therefore certain that ancient "Jewish literature does not know a personal A." (J. Bonsirven), nor a properly so-called human A. The thesis of W. Bousset, according to which the A. is a Jewish legend accepted by Christians, therefore lacks foundation. In the apocrypha, Beliar (who is not an eschatological entity) and other incarnations of evil do not appear in direct anti-Messianic struggle; indeed, at the appearance of the Messiah and his Kingdom they disappear. A kind of A. is Armilius (already in Targum Jonathan 2 Is. 11:4, where it seems interpolated), who however belongs to the Gaonic literature of the 8th century A.D. (D. Castelli, Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, Florence 1871, p. 239 ff.). Cf. H. L. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Komm. zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch, III, Munich 1926, pp. 637-40. The eschatology of the Christian apocrypha, on the other hand, gives great prominence to the A., whom the parousia of Jesus will annihilate (Apocalypse of Elijah, 2nd or 3rd century).

In the New Testament the nationalistic perspective that identifies "enemy of God" and Gentiles disappears. Anti-Messianism indeed becomes a sad Jewish characteristic (Act. 4:24-32; I Thess. 2:14-16; 4th Gospel; Apoc. 2:9; 3:9). The Gospels do not mention an individual A. Jesus foretells many pseudo-Christs (cf. Deut. 18:20) and pseudo-prophets (Mt. 24:11, 25; Mc. 13:22; Io. 5:43 b), whose doctrines and deceitful prodigies will lead many astray: these stand to the A. as the 2nd Beast of Apoc. 13 stands to the 1st Beast. But in I Io. the pseudo-prophet (4:1-3) is identified with the A. (2:22: identical features); cf. Apoc. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10. The Fathers apply Io. 5:43 b directly to the A.; e.g. Origen (Tractatus de libris ss. Scripturarum, ed. Batiffol, Paris 1900, p. 116).

The A. appears explicitly in II Thess. 2 (ca. A.D. 52) as "the man of sin": vv. 3-5 describe him as anti-God, vv. 6-12 as anti-Christ. The adversary (ὁ ἀντικείμενος) of God is "the son of perdition, who exalts himself above all that is called God or has divine worship, to the point of taking his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as God" (v. 4). For now he is restrained by a force (τὸ κατέχον) living and rational

(ὁ κατέχων), and therefore carries on his iniquitous work secretly (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας); when the obstacle is removed (at the end of times) the "apostasy" will come about: the iniquitous one (ὁ ἀνόμος) "will appear in every power by virtue of Satan with deceitful prodigies and every kind of sinful seduction, for the perdition of all those who will have believed the lie and not the truth" (vv. 9-12); but Jesus will appear and annihilate the iniquitous one (v. 8): the two opposing "parousias" are set against each other. Here it is a question, as the Ps.-Barnabas, Justin (C. Tryph., 32. 110), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, 25, 4; 28, 2) and Hippolytus already understood, of the A. ("Significari Antichristum nullus ambigit": St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 20, 19), whom the Apostle describes with the features of Antiochus IV expressed by Dan. 9:35-45; 11:21-12:1 (J. B. Orchard). Paul distinguishes two times: already now the A. exists and works in secret; at the end, however, he will have full freedom of action (cf. Apoc. 17:8; 20:3 b. 7), but after a brief triumph he will be routed by Jesus (cf. Apoc. 20:3 ["modico tempore"]. 8-9).

Similarly John, the only hagiographer who uses the term ἀντίχριστος (4 times in the first two epistles), distinguishes the two times; but for his parenetic purpose he insists on the present, whereas Paul had to illustrate to the Thessalonians "the apostasy" as a sign of the end. John affirms in the epistles that the A. "is already in the world," indeed that there are already many of them (I, 2, 18, 22; 4, 3; II, 7). He alludes to the eschatological expectation (I, 2, 18; 4, 3), adding that the present presence of a multitude of A.s who deny Christ is a sign that we have reached the end of the times (I, 2, 18); the impostors who deny Christ are moved by the "spirit of the A." (I, 4, 3), that is, by Satan. The A. is like the ideal type; in reality he manifests himself in a plurality of opponents of Christ, authors of the final "apostasy" (cf. I Tim. 4, 1-2; II Tim. 3, 1-5; 4, 3-4; Tertullian, De praescriptione, 4, 33). Polycarp (Ad Phil., 7, 2) echoes his master John.

The Apoc. is the prophetic picture of the struggle between Christ and the A., as St. Irenaeus points out (Adv. Haereses, V, 30, 3; PG 7, 1207; and in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 18), or rather between the two collectivities (Church and unbelieving world) that head them.

The Beast from the sea (13, 1-8), derived from Daniel, a blasphemer who fights and conquers the saints of God, on which Babylon sits, ch. 17, is the political A., that is, the worldly power and civilization that was then centered in Rome. The Beast from the earth (13, 11-17) is subordinate to it as "prophet" (16, 13; 19, 20; 20, 10): it is a pseudo-lamb (pseudo-Christ) and, as "high priest of the A." (Hippolytus), with prodigies seduces the peoples to adore the first Beast. The two Beasts represent the perpetual A. under his two aspects, political and intellectual (dominion and propaganda, power and seduction). The enemy who stirs up and directs the whole anti-Christian struggle is Satan (the Dragon), who however does not intervene openly (2, 24). Having been unable to devour Christ (12, 4-5), cast down to earth he persecutes the "other children" of the Woman and launches against humanity two of his earthly lieutenants (the two Beasts), just as Christ has his two witnesses (11, 1-13) who are a single reality (the Church). According to a constant rhythm, the opposition between Christ and the A. is depicted in symmetrical antithesis: both are kings of the earth (1, 5 and 2, 7; 13, 2, 7); Christ is lion and lamb (5, 5-6), the A. is a hybrid beast (13, 2); the Lamb (Christ) has seven horns and seven eyes (5, 6: "the seven spirits of God"; 4, 5), the Beast has seven heads and seven horns (17, 9: "the seven emperors"); Christ and the A. are enthroned (14; 13, 4, 12). The A. is therefore the caricature of Christ, and the kingdom of sin is the sacrilegious counterfeit of the kingdom of God. To the features of Antiochus IV already in use for describing the A., the Apoc. adds veiledly those of Nero (13, 18; 17, 8-12). The Apoc. too distinguishes the two times: the struggle against the anti-Christian forces of persecution and of persuasion is already now most harsh, attested in heaven by the confessors and the martyrs (2, 10-11; 7, 14; 14, 9-11; 14, 12-13; 20, 4), but it will culminate at the end of the times with the unleashing of the satanic powers, which in the end will be defeated forever (16, 13-16; 20, 7-10). The Apoc. of Elijah and almost all exegetes (except Tychonius) up to the 17th century saw in 11, 3-13 the struggle of the A. against Enoch and Elijah.

The Didaché 16, 3-4 announces for "the last days" the multiplication of false prophets and corrupters, among whom will emerge the seducer of the world passing himself off as the Son of God (φανέρεται ὁ κοσμοπλάνης ὡς υἱὸς θεοῦ), who will work prodigies and dominate the earth. The Epist. Barnabae announces the final apostasy as imminent (4, 3: τὸ τέλειον σκάνδαλον ἤγγιες), "as Enoch says" (Ethiopic Enoch 89, 61-64; 90, 17) and Daniel (Dan. 7, 7 ff. 24), and recommends "resisting" (as I Pt. 5, 9) in the period of impiety (ἐν τῷ ἀνόμῳ καιρῷ) so that "the Black One" (4, 9: ὁ Μέλας), that is, the A., may not enter stealthily.

The Fathers consider the A. as a false Messiah, an instrument of Satan; the Messiah awaited by Judaism is for Christians the A. (E. A. Sophokles, Greek Lexikon of the Roman a. Byzantine Periods, New York 1900, p. 192): "Antispistum pro Xpisto recepturi sunt" (Origen, op. cit., p. 31). Generally they hold him to be a Jew of the tribe of Dan (Irenaeus, V, 3; Hippolytus, De Antichristo; Jerome, In Danieleum, XI; Ambrose, De benedictionibus Patriarcharum 7; Augustine, Quaestio 22 in Josue; Theodoret; Andrew of Caesarea; Gregory the Great, Isidore, Bede; this is admitted as probable down to St. Antoninus, 15th century), or "a king of the Jews" (Primasius). The sad privilege of Dan is deduced from Gen. 49, 17, and from the omission of his name in Apoc. 7, 5-8. Sometimes Nero redivivus is considered as the A. (Cyril of Jerusalem), with the title of "king of the Jews" (Victorinus of Pettau) or as precursor of the Jew of Dan (Commodian, Lactantius). Later Jews will make the "man of sin" a son of Satan and of a woman (Simeon ben Johai; Apoc. of Daniel). In modern times J. Mariana, Scholia in V. ac N.T., Madrid 1619, returned to the legend, spread around 300 by Victorinus (Comm. in Apoc., 17, 9-16) and Commodian (Carmen. apolog., 825; Instructiones, I, 41, 7), who identified the A. with Nero redivivus; E. Renan transformed it into an axiom that he placed at the basis of his interpretation of the Apoc. (L'Antéchrist, Paris 1873). For Renan as for the other rationalists, the A. is a popular legend; W. Bousset claims for it historical-religious, psychological, folkloristic importance.

It would appear that the coalescing of the conception of the A. into a single person occurred in late Jewish apocalyptic (1st century), whence it passed to the Christians. From the 2nd century to today almost the unanimity of Catholics, besides distinguished Protestant exegetes (Th. Zahn, G. Wohlenberg), admitted the A. as an individual person; F. Suárez (De mysteriis vitae Christi, disp. 54, sect. I, n. 7) declares this "res certissima et de fide," and recently B. Rigaux has amply upheld the thesis of the individual A., concluding (p. 397): "In the New as in the Old Testament, the final opposition to the kingdom of God, although collective, is concretized in an individual."

(phot. Annar)

One must not, however, appeal to a doctrinal tradition; "in these eschatological matters no tradition whatsoever exists" (D. Buzy). Moreover, the Fathers were not unaware that the Antichrist can be understood as a collectivity. Origen (In Matth. 48) understands the Antichrist also in a spiritual and collective sense. Tyconius (4th century) leans toward the collective interpretation. Augustine, while admitting an individual Antichrist, notes regarding II Thess. 2 (De Civ. Dei, XX, 19): "Nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed universum quodammodo corpus eius, id est ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt", and concludes: "Alius ergo sic, alius autem sic Apostoli obscura verba coniectat". And even earlier Lactantius at times seems to understand the Antichrist as a collective and enduring reality (Instit., VII, 19) and thus describes its disappearance: "Sic extincta malitia et impietate compressa, requiescet orbis, qui per tot saecula, subiectus errori ac sceleri, nefandam pertulit servitutem". Gerhoh of Reichersberg (d. 1169) admits only a collective Antichrist. In the end, moreover, all those who assign as the central theme of the Apoc. the struggle of the Church with the Antichrist, from St. Irenaeus to C. Rösch (1941) and to A. Van der Heeren (1941), must have in mind a collective Antichrist, since "the expectation of a personal Antichrist appears absolutely foreign to the whole Apoc." (B. Allo, p. 94).

The individual Antichrist does not seem to figure in the biblical writings. In the New Testament, "the man of sin" of II Thess., the antichrists of the Johannine epistles, the two Beasts of the Apoc., the pseudochrists and pseudoprophets (with the "abomination of desolation", v.) of the synoptic apocalypse, are various descriptions of one and the same opposition to God and to Christ (B. Rigaux, p. 386). Now, this impious opposition always appears collective. The only passage adduced in favor of an individual Antichrist is II Thess. 2:3-12 (B. Rigaux, pp. 275-87). But the whole context forbids understanding here "the man of sin"

as a single man who will be born and live at the end of time, since even now he exists (vv. 4-7) insofar as "the mystery of iniquity is at work" (v. 7); at the end his full manifestation or parousia will take place, which for now is hindered by the "obstacle" (τὸ κατέχον). "The obstacle", which seems to be (as St. Thomas notes, followed by B. Allo and D. Buzy) the true preaching of the Gospel (convergence of II Thess. 2:3-12 with Mt. 23:11 ff., 24; I Tim. 4:1-2, where the "apostasy" is connected with false preaching; Apoc. 11:6-7) operating as "power of God" (I Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16), is a present and enduring reality that prevents the "lawless one" from revealing himself in all the "activity of Satan", not from being born. Since the "obstacle" is simultaneous with and opposed to the "man of sin", the nature of the latter must be established in coherence with that of the "obstacle", concordantly held to be a collective power that will extend to the last generation. The sign of Christ's parousia is not the existence of the Antichrist, but his triumphant appearing in the lying power of Satan. Availing himself of the personification popularized chiefly by Daniel (Antiochus IV Epiphanes: v. 8, τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ), Paul gives a personal aspect to the collective and self-perpetuating power of evil, thereby conferring dramatic movement on the antithesis (cf. I Cor. 4:6). The "man of sin" can be called individual only insofar as he incarnates a type. It may also be admitted, as a hypothesis, that the power of evil is at the end put into action "by a future man who will know all the forces of iniquity" (B. Allo, p. cxiv). But from the apostolic age onward, we live in the "end of times" (I Cor. 10:11), and Jesus' victorious campaign against his enemy is in progress (Io. 16:33; Apoc. 2:27; Eph. 1:21-22); the parousia of Jesus will mark the decisive clash, the epilogue of eternal triumph, after the final convulsion of the monster.

This collective interpretation of the Antichrist, put forward today among Catholics by P. Pierini, B. Allo, and acutely advocated by D. Buzy, followed by J. Bonsirven (Epitres de s. Jean, Paris 1935, p. 135) and by F. Amiot (L'enseignement de s. Paul, II, 4th ed., Paris 1946, pp. 211-14), corresponds to the New Testament conception of the kingdom of evil opposed to the Kingdom of God realized by Christ. The Antichrist is implicit in the Pauline phrases about the power of darkness that governs this world, a kingdom opposed to the Kingdom of Christ (Eph. 6:12; Col. 1:13; cf. Lc. 22:53) because it is ruled by Satan "prince of this world" (Io. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). The Antichrist is characterized by the proud pomp of universal dominion and by imposture. The Antichrist asserts himself through the centuries until he brings about the "apostasy": he is a politico-economic power that holds dominion over the seas and controls all commerce (Apoc. 13:17; 18:11-19); master of all means, he irresistibly subjugates and fascinates men with masked violence and flattering promises, and through self-interest and pleasures estranges them from the heavenly Kingdom (Apoc. 13:3-17; 17:3-4, 17-18; 18:9-24): rather than fighting God directly he substitutes himself (ἀντίθεος) in the hearts of men, this being the only way to annihilate His Kingdom. The Antichrist is an eschatological being, since eschatological time begins with the first coming of Christ, around whom the human struggle and drama unfold (death or life, perdition or salvation), and extends until his final parousia: therefore from the presence of the Antichrist one must deduce that we are at the last stage of the world (1 Io. 2:18). But only the parousia of the Antichrist with the consequent "apostasy" will be the sign of the imminent end (II Thess. 2:3-12).

Totally unfounded is the mythical theory that identifies the Antichrist with Satan. Already hinted at by Celsus (Origen, C. Celsum, 6, 42), it is today upheld by H. Gunkel and chiefly by W. Bousset (Antichrist as Satan incarnate), followed by many non-Catholics, such as M. Friedländer and in part R. H. Charles. The sacred texts clearly distinguish Satan from the Antichrist, who is a vast human force operating for the ousting of God and of his Christ, moved and guided by Satan.

The identifications of the Antichrist with persons or institutions have been innumerable; W. Bornemann eruditely sets out the principal ones. From Caligula and Nero down to Napoleon and Stalin, the Antichrist was recognized in many political figures and heresiarchs. In the Middle Ages the fearful expectation of the Antichrist intensifies, already with St. Norbert and St. Bernard; Uguccione da Lodi (13th century) and the Ludus de Antichristo popularize it; "spiritual" figures such as Ubertino da Casale brand certain popes as Antichrist; William of Saint-Amour, Giacomino da Verona, John of Paris, Nicholas de Clémanges treat of the Antichrist with aims of "reforming" polemic. Often the term is used in a broad, execrative sense, e.g. St. Catherine of Siena designates the antipope Clement as "Antichrist, member of the devil" (letter 306). The proximity of the Antichrist is predicted by Fluentino da Firenze (condemned in 1105), by Goffredo da Viterbo (1120-91), by Arnaldo da Villanova (condemned in 1311) and by many Joachimites, by Bartolomeo Jassovesio (condemned by Urban VI), by the Bohemian Milic (for the year 1365-67), by St. Vincent Ferrer (De fine mundi et Antichristo, 1412), by Manfredo of Vercelli, by the Sienese Sigismondo Tizio (d. 1528), in connection with the expected end of the world. The Fifth Lateran Council (Sess. XI, Constitution Supernas maiestatis, 19 Dec. 1516; Mansi, XXII, pp. 945-47) had to forbid preachers to announce the imminent Antichrist. But even the venerable B. Holzhauser (d. 1658) preached the birth of the Antichrist for the middle of the year 1855 and his slaying for the year 1911!

Launched by J. Wycliffe, the identification of the Antichrist with the pope pro tempore was championed by Luther (as early as 1520) (H. Grisar, Luthers Kampfbilder, fasc. 1-4, Freiburg im Breisgau 1921-23). This became a Protestant commonplace which, although refuted by Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, III) and by J. A. Eudaemon (De Antichristo II, 3 adversus Rob. Abbotum Oxoniensem, Ingolstadt 1609), was championed by many Englishmen, Germans and Frenchmen of the various sects. The scientists J. Napier (A Plaine Discovery of the whole Revelation of St. John, ch. 7, Edinburgh 1593) and I. Newton (Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, London 1733, posthumous) took the trouble to vent such anti-papism in entire treatises. Only H. Grotius rejected this exegesis of hatred (Annotationes ad Nov. Test., Amsterdam 1641), and for this he was covered with insults. Most of these anti-Roman exegetes saw the pope-Antichrist in the 2nd Beast of the Apocalypse, others in the 1st Beast or in both. From the 18th century, observing that the Antichrist is an eschatological being and that the end of the world was not coming, some abandoned this theory, which was nevertheless still so widespread 80 years ago that Cardinal Newman, confessing that until the age of 42 his imagination had been "sullied" by the Protestant hallucination that sees in Rome the capital of the Antichrist, had to refute it at length (The Protestant Idea of Antichrist, in Essays Critical and Historical, II, London 1897; The Patristic Idea of Antichrist, in Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects, London 1899).

In the face of the progressive apostasy of today's world, the reaction has sought to recognize the Antichrist in modern "progress" — materialist, mechanical, centralizing (D. Merezhkovsky in almost all of his output, e.g. Gesù sconosciuto, Italian trans., Florence 1933, pp. 256-61), Selma Lagerlöf in socialism (Die Wunder des Antichrist, 1897), many today in Bolshevism (N. Berdyaev; F. Ossendowski, L'ombra dell'Oriente tenebroso, Italian trans., Milan 1928, pp. 188-92, 220; L. Cappuccio, U.R.S.S. Reges dell'A., Milan 1933). Outside of any literature, G. Combs, Le retour offensif du paganisme, Paris 1938, observes that in Freemasonry and in Bolshevism "the very presence of Satan" is manifested (p. 197), in conformity with the encyclical Humanum genus (20 April 1884) which denounces the occult forces promoting "apostasy" with the "implacable hatred against Jesus Christ that burns in the heart of Satan". Leo XIII often denounced this growing apostasy, deploring "the abomination of desolation in the holy place" (Alloc. Consistory 30 June 1889), the "struggle against religion" (Consistory 30 Dec. 1889), the "continuous and most present danger of apostatizing from the faith" (Letter to the Italian people 8 Dec. 1892), "the advent of apostasy" (Letter to Card. Rampolla 2 Oct. 1895), the "fierce war on Catholicism" (Consistory 15 Aug. 1901; Letter to the Superiors General 29 June 1901), "legal subversion" and "pagan naturalism" (Alloc. to the Sacred College 23 Dec. 1902). Pius X in his 1st encyclical (E supremi apostolatus cathedra, 4 Oct. 1903) recognizes the Antichrist in atheistic and pagan society, in which he sees II Thess. 2, 2-3 fulfilled; he repeats this in the encyclical to the Bishops of Italy on Catholic Action (1 June 1905); in the encyclical Notre charge (25 Aug. 1910) he condemns those Catholics "now forming a wretched tributary of the great movement of apostasy organized in all countries to establish a universal Church without dogmas or hierarchy... which, under pretext of liberty and human dignity, would bring back into the world the legal reign of cunning and force". Now Pius XII makes the tragic observation (Alloc. 7 April 1947): "Today the spirit of evil has been unleashed against the Church and against every human order, indeed against God himself and against Jesus Christ with such fury as to make one forebode a definitive solution at hand, were it not known that the struggle will last as long as the world and will be resolved only in the victory of God... But in the meantime, how many victims!"

Impressive is the thesis of the masterpiece of R. H. Benson, The Lord of the World, London 1907 (Italian trans., Il dominatore del mondo, Florence 1900): the Antichrist is humanitarian naturalism which preaches moderation and peace and, by legal means, empties Catholicism; with persuasive simplicity it carries out laic leveling and the union of men in earthly enjoyment, receiving universal approval, "and it seems, at least from what we see, that the way has been opened to the most secret recesses of the human heart" (Italian trans., p. 154). No different is the opinion of L. Billot (De Verbo Incarnato, Rome 1892, pp. 437-38; 6th ed., 1922, p. 618) and of J. Meinvielle (De Lamennais à Maritain, Buenos Aires 1945, pp. 363-73).

Studi moderni. - W. Bornemann, Die Thessalonicherbriefe (in Kritisch-vergetischer Kommentar über das N. T. di H. A. W. Meyer), Gottinga 1894, pp. 348-75, 400-59, 556-706; W. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judentums, des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche, Ein Beitrag zur Änderung der Apokalypse, Gottinga 1895 (con largo apparato «religionsgeschichtlich»); id., s. v. in Ene. of Rel. and Ethics di J. Hastings, I (1908), pp. 578-81; id., Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3ª ed. di H. Gressmann), Tubinga 1926, p. 254 seg., 316 seg.; R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, Londra 1900, pp. LIII-LVII; id., The Revelation of st. John, II, Edimburgo 1920, pp. 89-90; M. Friedlander, Der Antichrist in den varchristlichen jüdischen Quellen, Gottinga 1901; C. Chauvin, Histoire de l'Antichrist d'après la Bible et les Saints Pères, Parigi 1903; G. Wohlenberg, Der erste und zweite Thessalonicherbrief (in Kommentar zum N. T. di Th. Zahn), Lipsia 1903, 2ª ed. 1900, pp. 141-58, 177-223; A. Lémann, L'Antichrist: choses certaines, choses probables, choses indicties, choses fantasistes, Lione 1905 (trad. it. di B. Neri, Torino 1908, 2ª ed. 1910); P. Pierini, De Antichristo, Perugia 1906; A. Lemonnier, in DFC, I, coll. 146-50; J.-M. Vosté, Comment. in Ep. ad Thessalon., Roma-Parigi 1917, pp. 194-221, 263-88; I. L. Ratton, Antichrist: An historical Review, Londra 1917; B. Allo, L'Apocalypse, Parigi 1921, pp. CXV-CXXI, 182-86, 198-214, 277-79; F. Prat, La Théologie de s. Paul, I, 12ª ed., Parigi 1924, pp. 94-99; D. Buzy, in DBL, fasc. I-II (1926), coll. 297-302; id., L'adversaire et l'obstacle (II Thess. 2, 3-12), in Recherches de Science religieuse, 24 (1934), pp. 402-31 (confuta B. Rigaux); J. Sickenberger, Die Johannesphilosophie und Rom, in Biblische Zeitschrift, 17 (1926), pp. 270-82 (sull'Anticristo-Papato dei protestanti); J. Kaufmann, s.v. Antichrist, in Encycl. Judaica, II, coll. 906-10; B. Rigaux, L'Antichrist et l'opposition au royaume messianique dans l'Auc. et le Nouv. Testament, Gembloux-Parigi 1932 (si il più ampio studio cattolico recente); F. Alcañiz, Ecclesia Patriotica et millenarius, Granata 1933, pp. 11-22, 27, 40-42, 99; J. Bonsirven, Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de J.-C., I, Parigi 1934, pp. 464-65; L. G. Randal, The Mystery of iniquity and his historical experts, in Biblioth. Sacra, 91 (1934), pp. 354-68; G. Ritter, Das Judentum und die Schatten des Antichrist, 3ª ed., Graz 1938; J. Kroon, De Antichrist, in Studiën, 70 (1938, 1), pp. 204-12; J. M. Bover, El principio de autoridad, obstetalo a la aparición del Anticristo: un texto misterioso de s. Pablo (II Thess. 2, 3-8), in Razón y Fé, 118 (1939), pp. 94-103; J. Holzner, L'Apostolo Paolo (trad. it.), Brescia 1939, pp. 284-95; J. B. Orchard, St. Paul and the Book of Daniel, in Biblica, 20 (1939), pp. 172-79; E. Lohmeyer, s. v. in Reallexikon f. Antike und Christentum, I, Lipsia 1942, pp. 450-57; A. Arrighini, L'A., Torino 1945; P. H. Furfey, The Mystery of Lawlessness, in Cath. Bibl. Quarterly, 8 (1946), pp. 179-91.

On the A. in popular conception and in medieval literature: E. Wadstein, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe: Antichrist, Weltabbat, Weltende und Weltgericht, Leipzig 1896; H. Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, Leipzig 1906; E. Bernheim, Mittelalterliche Zeitanschauungen in ihrem Einfluss auf Politik und Geschichtsbreitung, I, Tübingen 1918, p. 70 ff.; G. Hasenkamp, Das Spiel vom Antichrist, Münster 1933; L. U. Lucken, Antichrist and the Prophets of Antichrist in the Chester Cycle, Washington (Catholic University) 1940.

Antonino Romeo