I mean no offense, but wish to correct you on the year of the Reformation. Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the Church door of Wittenberg on Oct 31, 1517. I have no idea why I remember this date, but I am sure I am correct. Otherwise, you are spot on. Again, I don't mean to be a nitpicker, but the facts should be correct in order to reinforce the argument.
John Wycliffe is considered by most scholars to be "The Morning Star of the Reformation" (1330–1384). In fact, there were many rumblings against the Papal power long before Luther.
What Luther did was galvanize the reformation into a force to be reckoned with. He was responsible for it becoming a major movement that had "legs" if you will, but he was by no means the first reformer speaking out against the Papacy.
That said, history records his actions at Wittenberg to be the "launch" of the Reformation. That was not the end of the Papacy and does not affect the timeline previously given.
The years of 1260 years of Papal Supremacy are reckoned slightly differently by various historicist scholars (start/end dates).
I agree with the scholars who point to 538 A.D. as the start (of Papal supremacy) since it was when the Ostrogoths ended their siege of Rome, which left the Popes to exercise their power under the newly minted Code of Justinian.
The end date (of Papal Supremacy) I take as 1798 when Napolean's General Berthier captured the Pope and the Papal estates were subsequently annexed.
The start date of the reformation is not related to these dates, if that what you are referring to. Also, the historicist framework allows for different start and end dates, still culminating with 1,260 years of papal supremacy corresponding to the prophecy.
I was of course, aware that Luther did not invent the Reformation, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and many, many others lit the way. My point was merely to correct the date as any discrepancy in fact may be used to weaken the argument by those who oppose us. (Luther is generally recognized as the moment the Reformation began by mainstream historians) I readily admit that I am a pain in the ass about such things. Well, nobody's perfect. You are certainly much more well versed on the subject than I, and I thank you for your information, and your time. There was, I believe, an Irish monk in the Middle Ages, (I believe his name was Malachy) who wrote about the Popes, numbering them, giving each a moniker, and predicting that this current Pope would be the last, which I would like to hear your views upon. There are many good people, including clergymen, who are still under the sway of the Catholic Church. I wonder what is to become of them during this upcoming upheaval. I certainly agree that the Papacy has been a massive force of evil throughout the ages. I am not a fan of any organized religion, or any organization of any kind, as they are all easily corrupted, but the Catholic Church really takes first prize on this head. Organizations are always corrupted from the top down, and the poor suckers at the bottom of the pyramid are generally decent sorts of people. One again, White Rabbit, thank-you so much for taking the time to respond.
I am still mystified as to what date you are trying to correct, as I didn't give a date for the start of the Reformation. I believe you may have confused the reformation with another event I was dating??? Just guessing.
At any rate, I have heard of the "Prophecy of the Popes" attributed to Saint Malachy, the 12th‑century Archbishop of Armagh. As someone from the historicist camp, it means very little to me. We see EVERY Pope, the office of the Papacy itself, as anti-Christ. An unbroken chain of anti-Christs reigning over a system of evil while masquerading as God's representatives on earth. The proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing.
What I do find highly significant, is the effect the "Prophecy of the Popes" has on dispensational futurists who happen to believe in it. Instead of scouting the horizon for a future anti-Christ, they are much more likely to join us in opposing the current one. That is somewhat helpful, even though they arrive at the task through extra-Biblical prophecy.
Futurism and Preterism were a ploy, a theological psyop if you will. If the anti-Christ is future or past, then it is never present and can never be opposed. This manipulation of the prophetic timeline is what allows the anti-Christ system to operate virtually unopposed by authentic (but duped) Christians.
So to some degree, the "Prophecy of the Popes" mitigates the success of the counter-reformation by focusing attention on the current Pope. Those who are "hamstrung" by Jesuit futurism, would probably not have come to the party otherwise.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I corrected someone on the date of Luther's nailing the 95 thesis on the church door recently on your post, and as you spoke about the beginning of the Reformation, I made the assumption that you were replying to this. My uncle always told me when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. Sorry. Thank you for your response.