It depends on whether the Fathers were unanimous, which I don't recall offhand if this is one of those points. That said, there's room for speculation, of course, as both the interpretations of Fr. Berry and Fr. Herman Kramer vary on several points, even when compared with the compendium of prophecies from Yves Dupont. Yet, this does not mean we should delve right into the Modern reading of Scripture and assume that these references are all figurative.

It is correct to state that there are always lesser, archetypical antichrists in any given era, but the context of St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians speaks of a singular Man of Sin, which the Fathers identify as THE Antichrist.
Fr. Berry agrees with this point, citing Suarez:
A few excerpts of Fr. Kramer on the matter of Antichrist's individual nature:
The person of Antichrist will be the culmination of all the lesser antichrists throughout history:

Furthermore, here is the following that Yves Dupont collected regarding the Antichrist being an individual man (source):

Yes, Our Lord himself said, "If another come in his own name, him you will accept." Even Our Lord predicted the Antichrist would be ONE MAN.

It's actually a common error that the Antichrist will be a movement, a system, a tendency, an error. NO! It will be a singular MAN OF SIN. The SON OF PERDITION.

All the other antichrists with a lowercase "a" are just archetypes, dress rehearsals, for the REAL THING.

I'm pretty sure that's an error. The Antichrist will be ONE MAN -- not a system, error, tendency, or movement.

Furthermore, he will sit in the Temple giving himself out as god, working wonders and deceiving the elect.

We don't have this happening today. Just some real organized wickedness in the world. Much of that wickedness by the same (((group))) that has been opposing the Church for 2000 years. The only difference is how low we (the Good) have fallen. The Christian nations have all fallen into apostasy as nations. So we're lower than we've ever been before -- and the enemies of God are more successful than they've ever been before. But fundamentally, we're in the same situation: Good vs. evil, the good persecuted by the bad, etc. We haven't gone into the final "Antichrist" lap of the race yet.

Okay, let me restate. What I said does sound mixed up, although I did say at the beginning that Bergoglio was "the False Prophet." A singular man. Here's why I said it like I did.

1. I was using the word "antichrist" as St. John used it in his letters. There is no other use of that exact term "antichrist" in the Scripture than in John's letters. It refers to those people who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God. They "try to dissolve Christ" in some form or another. These people are manifold, as John uses the term.

2. The singular man discussed in Scripture is referred to variously as "the man of sin," the son of perdition," and "the wicked one" in 2 Thessalonians 2. I believe that he is referred to in the Apocalypse as "the False Prophet." I believe all of those people are the same person. So I agree that there is a singular man who is going to start the ball rolling in the End Times.

3. The Church Fathers (and all following them) used the term "the Antichrist" to refer to the singular person that I discuss in 2 above. This can easily be seen in Aquinas's works, where he and others identify "the Antichrist" as the person discussed in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24, even though the original Greek does not have "antichrist" in those places. In fact, Matthew 24 speaks of "false prophets."

I bring it all up to show that "the False Prophet," a religious leader not a secular leader, is the "man of sin," the "son of perdition." The False Prophet and The Antichrist are the same person. Everyone is waiting around for some secular leader to be "revealed." But I think Bergoglio is guy we are looking for. And that, very soon, it will become more clear (aka "he will be revealed") to those who do not yet see it.

Does anyone really believe that a secular leader is going to "sit in the Temple of God" and "deceive the Elect." The guy who is doing that and will eventually do it with finality is already there. His name is Bergoglio.

I bring it all up to show that "the False Prophet," a religious leader not a secular leader, is the "man of sin," the "son of perdition." The False Prophet and The Antichrist are the same person. Everyone is waiting around for some secular leader to be "revealed." But I think Bergoglio is guy we are looking for. And that, very soon, it will become more clear (aka "he will be revealed") to those who do not yet see it.

Does anyone really believe that a secular leader is going to "sit in the Temple of God" and "deceive the Elect." The guy who is doing that and will eventually do it with finality is already there. His name is Bergoglio.

Ok, thanks for clearing up the "singular man" issue, but you're still missing a big part of the picture.  You are incorrect that the antichrist will not be a secular leader.  He will be both a religious/secular leader together.  He will rule the world, as a human representative of satan himself.  He will be the evil joos' version of the messiah (i.e. a world ruler), which is contrary to what Christ wanted ("My kingdom is not of this world").


The Church Fathers (and Scripture) is very clear that the antichrist will be famous at a young age by winning military battles and he will eventually rule the "10 kings" spoken of in the Apocalypse.  7 kings will join him, they will conquer the 3 who resist him, and he will rule from his seat in Jerusalem.

Bergoglio doesn't fit any major antichrist attribute list.  The antichrist will not be a pope.  End of story.

The Church Fathers (and Scripture) is very clear that the antichrist will be famous at a young age by winning military battles and he will eventually rule the "10 kings" spoken of in the Apocalypse.  7 kings will join him, they will conquer the 3 who resist him, and he will rule from his seat in Jerusalem.

I may have misheard but the 10 kings are supposed to be the heirs of the Great Monarch. Correct me if I am mistaken

I've not heard that they are his heirs, in a family sense, as I'm not sure the Great Monarch ever marries.  No prophecy talks of this.  If he did have a Queen, then the Empire would be ruled by her after his death, not the 10 kings.  Also, he is described in many prophecies as holy or angelic, which usually signifies purity, so it's reasonable to assume he does not have a family.  But i'm guessing.

Yes, those kings would govern the world, split into 10 kingdoms, after the Monarch dies.  I would assume those 10 kings rule over their kingdoms before he dies, since as Emperor of the whole world, the Great Monarch would have kings who report to him, kind of like Governors in a republic style govt.  Once the Monarch dies, there is the inevitable power vacuum and those 10 kings jockey amongst themselves with the antichrist being a prodigy of sorts in warfare and in leading armies (similar to Alexander the Great).  He wins battles, convinces 7 kings to join him and they defeat 3 who resist.  Then the antichrist rises in power and the joos give him control of Jerusalem.  Then things get nuts.

Not necessarily his children, but in prudence he has to have a plan on what happens to the world when he dies.

Pax Vobis and Digital Logos. I am sure I’m wrong about some things that I have stated. The prophecies have not completely unfolded yet.

But I’m equally sure that an overly-literal reading such as yours will be shown to cause more grave errors. Please open your mind to metaphorical language when you are reading the Apocalypse. The “villain” in all of the prophecies is the head of the Counterfeit Catholic Church. Yes, he blends his false church with “the world,” making him a secular leader. Look what Bergoglio is doing with the UN and COVID vaccines. 

I don’t expect to convince you right now. I only say be open to the possibility that Bergoglio is “the man of Sin.” I could be wrong. I’m am fallible. Things will become clearer to all of us in the near future. 

But is Angelus saying the Anti-Christ/False Prophet, etc is "the/a pope"?  He said he thinks it's Bergoglio.