The idea that the Catholic Pope (or any pope) could be the Antichrist, and/or that the Catholic Church could be (or become) the "Great Whore of Babylon" is a 100% Protestant error, a heresy born in the depths of hell.

I've read many books on Catholic prophecies, Tradition, Lives of the Saints, etc. and studied for a few years at a Trad seminary. That's how I became convinced of this particular fact.

WHERE did you get the idea the Antichrist would be a pope, or even a man who claims to be pope?


Now if you're saying he's a TYPE or PREFIGURE of the actual Antichrist to come, we have no argument. History is full of types, allegories, dress-rehearsals, and precursors. God frequently works that way.

Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of John (1921), p. 135:
"[Rev. 13:11] The beast arising from the earth is a false prophet—the prophet of Antichrist. Our divine Saviour has a representative on earth in the person of the Pope upon whom He has conferred full powers to teach and govern. Likewise Antichrist will have his representative in the false prophet who will be endowed with the plenitude of satanic powers to deceive the nations. . . The two horns denote a twofold authority—spiritual and temporal. As indicated by the resemblance to a lamb, THE PROPHET WILL PROBABLY SET HIMSELF UP IN ROME AS A SORT OF ANTIPOPE DURING THE VACANCY OF THE PAPAL THRONE mentioned above."

Stunning prediction of the vacancy and connects the antipopes with the antichrist.


p. 138:

« [Rev. 13:16] The followers of Antichrist will be marked with a character in imitation of the sign that St. John saw upon the foreheads of the servants of God. This indicates that Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization—a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Saviour, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope. Their ceremonies will counterfeit the Sacraments and their works of magic be heralded as miracles.»


Stunning prediction of the invalid sacraments and false miracles like the Bogus Ordo eucharistic deception plaguing many.

Unity of Faith

.

No, there are lots of people with whom I have unity of faith, and most of them are not the pope.

You are misinformed. John of St. Thomas agrees with my position:


John of St. Thomas

X. Sit conclusio : De fide divina est immediate hunc hominem in particulari rite electum et acceptatum ab Ecclesia esse summum pontificem, et successorem Petri, no solum quoad se, se detiam quoad nos, licet multo magis quoad nos id manifestur, quando de facto pontifex aliquid definit, nec in ipso exercitio, et quasi practice aliquis Catholicorum ab hac conclusione dessentit, licet in acta signato, et quasi speculative putent se id non credere fide divina.

Translation

“Our conclusion is the following.  It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, properly elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although it is made much more manifest quoad nos (to us) when de facto the pope defines something.  In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion, even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”



Rite (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rite#Latin)


Etymology
From rītus (“rite, custom”), presumably from an ablative of an old third-declension form *rītis.

Adverb
rīte (not comparable)

• according to religious usage, with due observances, with proper ceremonies, ceremonially, solemnly, duly

Therefore, according to John of St. Thomas, if the election does not use the proper ceremonies and duly observe all requirements, then that person is not included under John of St. Thomas's opinion. Universi Dominici Gregis agrees with John of St. Thomas and goes further to nullify such an improper election, in Section 76:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

The treatise is lengthy and thorough.  In the quote you provided, he says it is de Fide that the lawfully elected and universally accepted candidate is truly pope.  That does not mean that an illegitimately elected and universally accepted candidate is not pope.  Continue reading and you will find:

"...if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [that the one elected is a true Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church..."

John of St. Thomas's concern was putting to rest questions about past papal elections (those that occurred during the Western Schism) to establish certain dogmatic facts, specifically that Pope so-and-so was the actual Pope in the past and not an Antipope. That is the subject matter of his mention of a de fide declaration. It is about dogmatic facts (the real Pope's name) not a dogmatic teaching to be applied in all future papal elections. Anyone interested can confirm what I saying by reading about the Council of Constance here.


The problem with the 2013 false conclave is not about an election that is carried out in a "questionable manner." A "question" implies that there is some doubt about the situation.

No, the 2013 conclave is objectively, unquestionably illegal. The Pope was still living at the time of the election. The law governing papal elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, requires, in Section 49 that the election can be held no sooner than "on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope."

And, as I have shown over and over, that Apostolic Constitution states later the following:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

The putting to rest of questions about past papal elections is one of the conclusions following from the application of the principle of universal acceptance.  The principle is not thereby limited to that specific application. It applies to all elections.

Number 76 is not in contradiction to the principle, nor does it even deal with the same question.  An illegitimate election confers no right on the elected.  The rights of the papal office are conferred some time later by the universal acceptance of the Church alone.

.

No, there are lots of people with whom I have unity of faith, and most of them are not the pope.

Yes.  The Vicar of Christ is the principle and center of the unity of faith.  

The putting to rest of questions about past papal elections is one of the conclusions following from the application of the principle of universal acceptance.  The principle is not thereby limited to that specific application. It applies to all elections.

Number 76 is not in contradiction to the principle, nor does it even deal with the same question.  An illegitimate election confers no right on the elected.  The rights of the papal office are conferred some time later by the universal acceptance of the Church alone.

Please, one step at a time. So are you admitting that John of St. Thomas's used of the phrase "de fide" in the quote that you provided is in relation to a "dogmatic fact," not a "theological conclusion?" Yes or No?

Regarding Pope John XXII

"However, he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff, and he held it theoretically or for the sake of debate, thinking that he could be deceived in these matters and permitting others to think differently until the question should be decided authoritatively. Hence he took care to have the matter studied by the Doctors, and frequently summoning debates in his presence on this point, he was prepared to abandon his opinion if it was shown to be against the faith. Indeed, on the day before his death he ordered a declaration of the true doctrine in the presence of all the Cardinals, etc. He said that previously he thought differently about this matter by pondering it and speaking about it. In this way he prepared the way for his successor, Benedict XII, to proclaim a definition of the true teaching [see Denz. 530-531]."

- Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.



Prior to Pope Benedict XII's definition, the issue was up for discussion.  Pope John XXII never formally taught any heresy to the Church...that's just a bunch of malarkey. 

It's also a well know fact that Saint Bernard also held to the same opinion as Pope John XXII

"St. Bernard [Doctor of the Church, 1090-1153] often taught that deceased just persons immediately after death will obtain immense happiness, but not the beatific vision until the resurrection [of their bodies]."

- Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.

I did not say he taught heresy, but error against the Faith.  At his time, it was not a dogma.  The fact that it is now a dogma means that it always has been true, only now we have more certainty that it is part of the Faith.  The point is, he taught an error against the Faith and was yet a true pope.  And he was not the only one.