Patman said:Where you go wrong is that the Antichrist will be a man, not the Devil. A man can be a false pope, and as St. Bernard believed, the Antichrist can very well be a papal claimant whom the majority follow, but who is really not a true pope.
St. Bernard was awesome. I was surprised when I learned a little bit more about his life, just like I was when I finally learned that St. Francis wasn't the proto-hippie Uncle Remus flower child as he is portrayed in movies.
Bernard, as everyone should know, went and got Anacletus II deposed, a "Pope" who didn't even have one fraction of the strikes against him that these Freemasonic stooges of today have. He also didn't have SSPX to stand in his way and tell him that he couldn't judge the Pope and that he had to stand idly by and let a destroyer ravage everything in sight just because by some technicality he
might still have retained the office.
What a bunch of castrated wusses Catholics have become. We know these guys in Rome are destroyers, Mason stooges, why do we sit around pretending? Tell you what -- make me Pope, and I will come up with a reason why they were not Popes, I will sign it into law, and that will be that. It doesn't matter if it's the Anaphora of Addai and Mari or the Joint Declaration on Justification or their various public unrepented heresies, it's all good, it all works.
People like to argue about whether a public heretic can still be Pope, whether Bellarmine or Cajetan was correct, and they will argue about this endlessly. Okay, make me Pope, and I will define that no, he cannot, siding with Bellarmine. See how easy it is?
The Church is much more flexible than people believe; the laws are made for us, not us for the laws!
******
Back to Antichrist, the problem with your scenario, Patman, is that you don't lose your soul just by following a false Pope. I think we all agree on that now, though last year I thought if you went to an una cuм Mass you were committing sacrilege.
JPII was probably born of a Jєω, Emilia Katz, and he definitely had some Anti-Christ qualities -- sat in the temple of God, showed himself as God, it was definitely all about him and his "rock star" persona, though I find his charisma is highly overrated, unless you find smirking monosyllabic polyglots to be impressive.
I just don't think that religious liberty and the Anaphora of Addai and Mari are the great wonders of Anti-Christ. These transgressions surely mean the VII structure is not the Church, but it's not quite enough to reap all the souls that Anti-Christ will reap, since most people don't even understand anything about them, not even enough to be materially heretical.
But I still agree with Catholic Samurai, and I had been thinking along these lines myself, that the Anti-Christ will not be a Pope. I still say it would be galling for the Anti-Christ to have to hide behind the Catholic religion to deceive everyone. I think he will somehow convince people that the Catholic Church has evolved into whatever he will make it: The Church of Me, Bob W. Brown Esq. AKA Antichrist.
Forgive me if I've said this elsewhere, but I also believe that Satan actually NEEDS the Catholic Restoration to happen, the age of the Monarch. The Anti-Christ is a false spiritual leader, but we are in a time that is so spiritually dead that people aren't even looking for a false Messiah ( and please don't bring up Obama, no one cares as much as that ). That means that Satan will have to somehow turn the spiritual fervor of the post-Monarch years to his advantage, and will completely corrupt and derange the majority of people before the advent of Anti-Christ, who will simply collect all the rotten fruit that Satan has already provided for him.
More proof that we are not in the time of Antichrist -- for you, Myrna -- is that Elias and Enoch haven't come ( no, Richard Ibranyi doesn't count ).
Topic: Antichrist Pope (Read 4502 times)