It would be naïve to think that after reaching a place, the Antichrist would not interfere with the religion of that country. It became obvious during the 1490s that the Antichrist and the Vatican did not agree with each other. Thus, finding a replacement or an alternative to the Vatican was a matter of time.
To meet the needs of its long-term objectives, the Antichrist needed a less dogmatic and more liberal second branch of the church. Thus, in 1534, King Henry VIII, after disagreeing with the Pope, decided to create the Anglican church. It is easy to see the hand of the Antichrist in dividing the people in England into Catholics and Protestants, then further dividing the Protestants into Conformists and Non-Conformists.
The schism was not due to religious disagreements but rather the political power that the Vatican held over the monarchs. The Vatican could not allow anyone to challenge its authority and the system it had established. The biggest weapon that the Vatican had was the threat of excommunication. Charles Freeman, referring to Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), the famous philosopher and theologian, argued “even Aquinas lived under continual threat of excommunication. [1]”
Indeed, excommunication was a powerful weapon in the hands of the system’s operators and guardians, namely the church and the priestly class. A mere whisper of the word was enough to bring shivers down the spines of ordinary people as well as monarchs and statesmen.
This raises one interesting question: if the papal autocracy was corrupt, tyrannical, and one-eyed (which it was), then why would the Antichrist deem it necessary to seek an alternative branch of Christianity? The answer is that he was the midwife at the birth of the Anglican church; the Anglican church has been less resistant to the invites of the Antichrist, particularly on issues like the usury. Secondly, how else could the Antichrist create wars between Christians?
Perhaps this explains England’s alliance with the Antichrist and why England has a phobia about the two-eye system and has worked hard to destroy the two-eye system.
A question for the readers. If the Antichrist was the midwife at the birth of the Anglican church, then who was the midwife at the birth of Wahhabism, Deobandiism, and Barelviism? Something worth pondering over. They all either implicitly or explicitly consented to the separation of politics and religion in the corridors of power.
References
[1] C. Freeman, D 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State, London : PIMILCO, 2008.
