There is no doubt that "the Little Horn," described in Daniel 7 and 8, is considered by the Church Fathers to be "the Antichrist." Just open your Douay-Rheims to Daniel 7. Look at the footnote on Ver. 8 which says:

"Another little horn. This is commonly understood of Antichrist. It may also be applied to that great persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes, a as a figure of Antichrist."

Okay, I'll look it up.

So I looked it up. It does say what you said it did. But this is still not proof of your assertions - that the current fake Pope (fake in your opinion), Francis, is THE antichrist as foretold in Scripture. 

Dead serious, Meg. You are expected to apply yourself and pray for guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you ask with humble heart, your prayer will certainly be answered.

So you are some sort of prophet? Does the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity speak to you directly?

You crack me up, Meg. You seem to obsessed with who I am. I don't matter.

I refer you to the Bible. I refer you to the Church Fathers. I refer you to St. Hildegard. I tell you my interpretation of those writings.

The writings that I refer to are the important part, not my interpretation. You might agree or disagree with my interpretation. We can have a discussion about that disagreement. I am not infallible.

But yes, I believe in truth and the Holy Spirit as the one and only guide to finding it. Why do I believe this? Because Jesus said it in John 14:

22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father's who sent me. 25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. 26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Do you believe those words, Meg?

I'm just trying to find out why you insist that we accept your beliefs. I'm glad to see that you are okay with us disagreeing with your interpretations, and that you don't believe that you are infallible, because you sure seemed to think that we must accept your interpretations.

The Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier. He's not there to provide us with predictions of the future, like the goofball charismatics seem to think.

there ae many anti-Christs.  Martin Luther was one.

No, I've never taken a philosophy class - and I don't mind that you ask. I've not read Plato, but I've read Aristotle, because he's more in line with Catholic teaching (per the Angelic Doctor) I'm just a simple Catholic housewife, but that doesn't mean that I'm obligated to accept your belief that Francis is THE antichrist. I think that there are others on the forum here who disagree with you, and they are far better educated than I.

I don't believe that I'm hostile to your views, I just don't agree with them. Is there another way to voice my disagreement, that you would find more charitable and acceptable?

That's fine. No philosophy background. May I suggest reading Plato's Gorgias? It deals with the question of the search for Truth as opposed to engaging in rhetoric. It was the first philosophy book that I read. It is a dialogue. Not hard to read.

Meg, as a Catholic, you are obligated to seek and follow the Truth. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to find the Truth. But work we must. 

When you say that you disagree with my views, that is not really a discussion. You are just making a statement. A better approach would be to pick a specific point of disagreement and explain why you disagree, ideally using authoritative Catholic sources to bolster your position. Then you might be able to help me see where I am going wrong. 

I'm a traditional Catholic. I don't have to "seek" after anything. I have already found the Truth, and that's the Truth of the Catholic Faith.

If the Catholic Faith, as it was taught before Vatican ll, isn't enough for you, I understand that. But I have what I need, though the Church, to save my soul, though it takes a lot of work. I don't need access to predictions of the future in order to do that. As Catholics, we must always be watchful. That doesn't change with the times.

Meg, you seem to be more a lover of rhetoric than a lover of Truth. Yes, the traditional Catholic Faith is the Truth. But you act in ways that contradict the traditional Catholic Faith. 

1. You make comments belittling prophecy, when most of Sacred Scripture is prophetical.
2. You think you don't need to worry about "predictions of the future," when Scripture tells you "don't despise prophecy."
3. You think if a prophecy is not immediately obvious to Meg, then its content is impossible for anyone to understand.
4. You think if a Catholic layman offers an interpretation of a prophecy, he has done something Protestant-like.
5. You make uncharitable comments to fellow Catholics who have don't nothing to you.

Those things are not consistent with the Catholic Faith. In fact, those things "contradict" the Truth taught by the Catholic Faith. But, for some reason, you cannot see that "contradiction." 

Meg, you seem to be more a lover of rhetoric than a lover of Truth. Yes, the traditional Catholic Faith is the Truth. But you act in ways that contradict the traditional Catholic Faith.

1. You make comments belittling prophecy, when most of Sacred Scripture is prophetical.
2. You think you don't need to worry about "predictions of the future," when Scripture tells you "don't despise prophecy."
3. You think if a prophecy is not immediately obvious to Meg, then its content is impossible for anyone to understand.
4. You think if a Catholic layman offers an interpretation of a prophecy, he has done something Protestant-like.
5. You make uncharitable comments to fellow Catholics who have don't nothing to you.

Those things are not consistent with the Catholic Faith. In fact, those things "contradict" the Truth taught by the Catholic Faith. But, for some reason, you cannot see that "contradiction."

I used to debate with the few charismatics on the old Catholic Answers forum. They used some of the same arguments that you do (and no, I'm not saying that you're a charismatic). They too were overly sensitive, as if disagreeing with them was the same as disagreeing with the Holy Ghost.

If you can show specific Church teaching, or specific citations from the Church Fathers which show CLEARLY that a fake pope of a fake church in Rome that was previously Catholic would become the seat of the antichrist, then I will pay more attention to your claims. They key here, IMO, is clear references to your claims, not inferences.