Released: July 28, 2019
595 views on Youtube as of March 27, 2022
Was Luis Alcazar the start of the preterist interpretation of prophecy? We'll find out.
THE CATHOLIC COUNTER-REFORMATION
Protestant application of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the Antichrist to the Roman Catholic Church
Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy - Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614)—during the Counter-Reformation.
The Papal Roman Catholic Church commissioned De Alcazar and another Spanish Jesuit Priest to develop interpretations of prophecy to take the heat off the Pope who was feeling some discomfort from the Protestant Reformers talk that the Papacy was the Antichrist. The whole idea was that if the Antichrist had been fulfilled in the past then it could not be the Papacy.
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591),
another brilliant Jesuit Priest and doctor of theology from Spain puts the Antichrist into a future three and a half literal years. His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time. Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist. In 1590 Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist.
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine of Rome (1542-1621).
Between 1581-1593, Cardinal Bellarmine agreed with Ribera in his work Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of this Time.
The futurist teachings of Ribera were further popularized by an Italian cardinal and the most renowned Jesuit controversialists. His writings claimed that Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power. The futurists’ school won general acceptance among Catholics. They were taught that antichrist was a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time.iv
Some of Alcazar's views:
Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Revelation chapters 12-19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism and the conversion of the empire to the Church.
2 witnesses - the doctrine and holy lives of Christians - NOT PRETERIST
Revelation was the apostolic church, begetting the Roman Church - NOT PRETERIST
Rev 13 First Beast was Rome's arrogance - NOT PRETERIST
Rev 13 Second Beast was Rome's carnal wisdom - NOT PRETERIST
Rev 17 - idolatrous ancient Rome - NOT PRETERIST
Rev 18 - about the conversion of Rome to Catholicism - NOT PRETERIST
Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Cæsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
THERE IS NO ANTICHRIST!
If we say the 1st Beast of Rev. is antichrist then Nero was the Human controlled by that Beast
Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church. - NOT PRETERIST
WHAT EARLY CHURCH FATHERS THOUGHT ABOUT ANTICHRIST/BEAST
Justin Martyr - thought antichrist would be in his time (150 AD)
Irenaeus - thought antichrist was at his time (180 AD), Lateinos (Latins) or someone whose name added to 666
Hippolytus - (200 AD) all over the place, thinks Daniel's ten horns were future kingdoms (even though Dan 7:24 says they are KINGS), thinks the woman in Rev 12 is the Church
Tertullian - thought the antichrist would come from Rome in HIS time (250 AD)
St. Methodius of Olympus 250 - 311 - future roman emperor
Cyril of Jerusalem 315 - 386 AD - future
"shall seize the power of the Roman Empire and shall falsely style himself Christ" - correct
"shall seduce the Gentiles by his magical illusions" - sorta... Simon Magus
Cyprian of Carthage - it was about to come in his time! (350 AD)
St. Ambrose 340 - 397 - future
St. John Chrysostom 347 - 407 future
REVELATION WASN'T WRITTEN TO THEM!!!
Alcazar's views were NOT PRETERIST, though he did have a historical view of some of the same things... he was simply trying to take the people's focus off of the diocese and the corruption within it.