What the Tradition Says

Home › The Possibility › What the Tradition Says

✓ Reviewed by Fr. John How this site is made

I read Revelation 13 with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and with later writers such as Fr. Charles Arminjon. But their witness does not all carry the same weight. Scripture and the Church's teaching come first; the Catechism gives the Church's own summary of the final trial (CCC 675–677). Where the Fathers agree, their agreement carries great weight. Where they differ, the question is open. Theologians such as Arminjon are respected, not binding (How I read Revelation 13).

St. John Henry Newman, who gathered the Fathers' teaching on the Antichrist, warned that on prophecy there was among them "no catholic, no formal and distinct" tradition, only a common expectation (The Patristical Idea of Antichrist, Lecture 1). That is the spirit of this page. I set out what they held, I say plainly where I follow them, and I say just as plainly where I do not.

One man, at the end

What the tradition holds. St. John warned that "many antichrists have appeared" (1 John 2:18), and the Church has always known the spirit of antichrist at work in every age. But the Fathers also expected one man at the end. Newman found this to be the universal tradition of the early Church: the Antichrist "is one man, an individual, not a power or a kingdom" (Advent Sermons on Antichrist, Tracts for the Times 83, Sermon I). The devil does not become man as the Lord did; St. John Damascene teaches that the Antichrist "becomes man as the offspring of fornication and receiveth all the energy of Satan" (Exact Exposition IV.26), and Arminjon repeats it (p. 43). The Catechism calls the final trial "the supreme religious deception," that of the Antichrist (CCC 675).

Where I stand. I follow the tradition here. With it, I hold that Satan cannot become incarnate; he must prepare one man. I read Damascene's words not of a literal birth but of a spiritual lineage, one formed from his youth to serve false gods (The First Beast, two reflections). Arminjon, citing Augustine, Jerome, Thomas, Bellarmine and Damascene, holds that the Antichrist will be a human person possessed by the devil from his youth (p. 41).

The apostasy comes first

What the tradition holds. St. Paul writes that the day of the Lord will not come "unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed" (2 Thessalonians 2:3). St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Paul, considered that the apostasy might be a falling away from the faith, from the Roman Empire, or from the faith of the Roman Church. Newman, gathering the Fathers, held with them that the Man of Sin "is born of an Apostasy, or at least comes into power through an apostasy" (The Patristical Idea of Antichrist, Lecture 1). Arminjon foresaw that "apostasies will be numerous, and courage will become rare," reaching even the learned and the preachers (pp. 48–49).

Where I stand. I follow the tradition, and I add the caution it teaches. St. Cyprian and Tertullian thought the end was near, and so did many around the year 1000 (Arminjon, pp. 39–40). The apostasy of our time is a sign to read carefully, not proof that the end has come (The great apostasy).

The heads and the kings

What the tradition holds. Catholic commentary, including the NABRE note, reads the seven heads of Revelation 17 as Roman emperors and the seven hills as Rome's own. St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril and Lactantius read ten kings rising at the same time from the breakup of Rome, among whom the last enemy rises (Against Heresies V.26.1; Catechetical Lecture 15.12; Divine Institutes VII.16). St. Hippolytus says Daniel's ten toes are "equivalent to (so many) democracies" (On Christ and Antichrist 27). St. Augustine, more cautious, asks whether ten "signifies the whole number of kings who are to precede his coming" (City of God XX.23).

Where I depart. I read the heads as world powers, as many Protestant interpreters do, and the United States as the seventh head. That last step is my own; no Father or Doctor takes it, and I say so (The First Beast, card 2). On the ten kings I stand closest to Augustine: all the powers that will stand with the beast, whoever they are (Revelation 17).

A short and measured time

What the tradition holds. The Fathers commonly took the three and a half years as the Antichrist's reign and stressed its shortness. St. Augustine wrote that the kingdom of Antichrist "shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church" (City of God XX.23). St. Jerome held that he "is going to persecute the saints for three and a half years" (Commentary on Daniel). St. Irenaeus joined Daniel's half-week to the Antichrist's reign (Against Heresies V.25.4), but built no schedule on it. Catholic tradition has never taught a literal seven-year tribulation, and the Church forbids fixing the time of the end (CCC 673). Arminjon warned that every attempt to fix it has been "no more than personal, private sentiments" (p. 39).

Where I depart. I use a seven-year frame, but only as a test of my reading against what has already happened, never to count forward. I grade it possible, and if it fails, the Church's reading stands untouched (The Timing).

The temple, the sacrifice and the abomination

What the tradition holds. Many Fathers expected the Antichrist in a temple at Jerusalem: St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies V.25.2), St. Hippolytus (On Christ and Antichrist 6), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 15.15) and St. John Damascene. Arminjon, following Cornelius à Lapide, expected the temple to be rebuilt (p. 64). But St. Jerome, answering Algasia, judged the Church the truer reading (Letter 121, q. 11), and on Matthew 24:15 he allowed that the abomination may be "any bad doctrine" standing in the Church (Commentary on Matthew, Book IV). On the daily sacrifice, Arminjon holds that the Mass will cease only once the Antichrist "has obtained universal dominion" (p. 51).

Where I stand. With Jerome, I find no real basis in Scripture for a rebuilt temple, and I read the holy place spiritually. With Arminjon, I read the daily sacrifice as the Mass, and the suspension of public Masses in the pandemic as a foreshadowing, not the fulfillment. Where I go beyond Jerome is in placing the abomination in each person who accepts the mark, since the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). The Church has not decided these questions (The Timing).

The number and the mark

What the tradition holds. The Fathers took the number as a name, and refused to name anyone. St. Irenaeus held it "more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment" (Against Heresies V.30.3); St. Hippolytus, that "when he appears, the blessed one will show us" (On Christ and Antichrist 50). Irenaeus also read 666 as the sum of all apostasy (V.29.2). On the mark, Irenaeus took it literally, while St. Augustine read the forehead as what we profess and the hand as what we do (City of God XX.9). Arminjon foresaw those who refuse it shut out of ordinary life, even "forbidden to draw water from the public fountains" (p. 49).

Where I stand, and where I depart. I follow the Fathers in fitting the number to no one's name. But I have offered two observations, 666 Fifth Avenue and John 6:66, which the Fathers' rule tells against, and I have marked that card "against, as now argued" (The First Beast, card 13). On the mark I hold with the whole tradition that it is joined to worship, and that a technology becomes the mark only when it is (What the Mark Is).

The Church in the trial

What the tradition holds. The Church will not be taken out of the trial; she "must pass through" it (CCC 675). St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught that the martyrs who stand against the Antichrist will be the greatest of all, because they contend with Satan himself (Catechetical Lecture 15.17). St. Augustine consoles us that even then the Church will not be drawn away, and people will still be baptized (City of God XX.8). And Arminjon, following Suarez, holds that even the Antichrist will not be deprived of his guardian angel or of sufficient grace (p. 43).

Where I stand. Here I follow the tradition without reserve, and this is why the site exists. God announced the trial in advance, Arminjon writes, "so that we might prepare ourselves even now to sustain it" (p. 48). That preparation is the work of Stand Firm.

A novel the popes have commended

Alongside the Fathers, three popes have pointed readers to a novel: Robert Hugh Benson's Lord of the World (1907), in which a world that has lost its faith receives a gentle, persuasive savior who unites humanity in peace and then turns on the Church. Pope Francis said in a homily that Benson describes the worldly spirit that leads to apostasy "almost as though it were a prophecy, as though he envisioned what would happen" (homily at Santa Marta, November 18, 2013). He recommended it again on the flight home from Manila in 2015, and in Budapest in 2023 called it "in a certain sense prophetic." As Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI cited it in a lecture in Milan in 1992, and before his election Pope Leo XIV spoke of it as a book for our time (Catholic News Agency, June 28, 2025).

Where I stand. A novel is not the Church's teaching, and Benson's Antichrist is not a portrait of anyone living. But like Soloviev's tale, which I set beside the second beast (The Second Beast, card 4), it shows what the tradition expects: a last deception that comes as peace and humanity, not as open horror.

Fr. Vincent Miceli

Where I depart from the tradition

A reader should know exactly where my reading is my own. Four steps are:

• Naming a living man. The Fathers expected one man at the end but refused to name him. I name a candidate, graded possible or probable and never settled, and I do not affirm that he is the final Antichrist.
• The United States as the seventh head. No Father or Doctor reads the heads this way.
• A seven-year frame, with a pause. Catholic tradition does not teach it; I use it only as a test, never to count forward.
• The number. My observations on 666 run against the Fathers' rule, and I have graded them so.

Where I depart, the tradition is the standard my reading must answer to, not the other way round. The strongest objections, with my answers, are gathered on the scorecard under each mark.

Sources

• NABRE, text and notes
• Catechism of the Catholic Church 673–677
• St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.25–30
• St. Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 15
• Lactantius, Divine Institutes VII
• St. Augustine, City of God XX
• St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, trans. G. L. Archer (Baker, 1958); Commentary on Matthew, Book IV, on 24:15; Letter 121, q. 11
• St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV.26
• St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, ch. 2
• St. John Henry Newman, Advent Sermons on Antichrist (Tracts for the Times 83), reprinted as The Patristical Idea of Antichrist
• Pope Francis, homily at Santa Marta, November 18, 2013; Catholic News Agency, June 28, 2025, on Benedict XVI, Francis and Leo XIV and Benson's Lord of the World
• Fr. Charles Arminjon, The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, trans. Susan Conroy and Peter McEnerny (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2008), Second Conference

Continue