Thomas21. You are correct. "The False Prophet" is the person in whom the specific error of being a "false prophet" has been perfected. In other words, there have been many "false prophets" but the final one will be "The False Prophet." And he will be an "apparent pope," as you say. To understand what a "false prophet" is as defined by the Fathers of the Church, see this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ContraImpu.C22.2.2): Now a man may be a false apostle or a false prophet for one of two reasons. First, he may not be sent by God: "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied (Jer 23:21)." Second, a false apostle or prophet will proclaim not the Word of God, but his own inventions: "do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord (Jer 23:16)." So by these definitions, we know that The False Prophet must be someone who either claims to possess apostolic succession (i.e., has been sent) or preaches "his own inventions" or both. From this definition, we can exclude from the list of potential "false prophets" people like lay Catholics, Protestant preachers, non-Catholic world leaders, etc. Only a person with a presumptively-valid claim to apostolic succession rises to the level of a "false prophet" according to the Fathers of the Church. All people who teach religious error are not "false prophets." The perfect expression of a "false prophet" will be a Catholic Antipope, who will be "The False Prophet." Similarly, the Antichrist will be a person who previously claimed to be Roman Catholic and will publicly apostatize. Here is St. John's definition of an "antichrist" in 1 John 2: 18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us but they were not of us. Note that any "antichrist" must be a person who were apparent members of the Catholic Church, but left the Church. So again, the Antichrist, by definition, cannot be a person who has never been Catholic. He must have been apparently Catholic and "went out from us." This definition excludes cradle-Protestants, cradle-heretics, cradle-schismatics, pagans, heathens, etc. Therefore, "The Antichrist" cannot be someone like Putin or Xi Jinping or any Muslim or any Jew, etc. The Antichrist can only be a fallen away (apostatized) Catholic. In fact, the Antipope who will soon be known as The False Prophet will also be The Antichrist. Just two names that describe different aspects of the same person. The person is a "false prophet" because he is accepted by Catholics as a teacher; he is an "antichrist" because he was Catholic but has become an apostate/heretic/schismatic.
I don't know whether the False Prophet and the Antichrist will be, or need to be, identical, but this post is, in general, very plausible.
I disagree with your interpretation of St Thomas Aquinas. It does not necessarily follow that the person not sent by God is a pope. That’s your surmise. The Antichrist and the False Prophet are two separate people,
The Antichrist is identified as "the Beast from the Sea" in Apocalypse 13. The False Prophet is identified as "the Beast from the Earth" in the same. In Apocalypse 17, the Beast is described as having 7 heads and the eighth head "goes to destruction." The "heads" represent "kings." So last head (king) of "the Beast from the Sea" (the Counterfeit church) is the Antichrist. A single "man of sin," this "little horn," will have three characteristics of the anointed (the messiah/christ): he have the roles as a "priest," a "prophet" and "a king." But he will be the inversion of a true priest, prophet and king. He will be a satanic priest (because he has sold his soul to the Satan), he will be a "false prophet" (because he contradicts the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church), and he will be Antichrist (because, instead of the true Vicar of Christ ruling the OHCA Church, he will be a non-canonically-elected Antipope running the Counterfeit Church, the Beast). The Antichrist will be the embodiment of the Unholy Trinity. This is how he is described in the Apocalypse. Regardless, the Antichrist cannot be, by definition, a non-Catholic or a non-Bishop. He must be both. He will be an Antipope.
We shall see. Or maybe we will be passed away when this happens. I’m not convinced. You never answered my point that you surmised that the person who may not be sent by God is a pope. You built your whole argument on something you can’t say is true from what Aquinas said. You started out to talk about Aquinas and made your own assumption. Then you interpreted the Scripture to mean that the False Prophet and the Antichrist are one person. I am not buying it. I’m aware that there can be an unholy Trinity but I’m not accepting your explanation.
Scripture does seem to point them out as two separate beings; [20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him, wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast, and who adored his image. These two were cast alive into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone.
I said any "false prophet," according to St. Thomas, is "false" either because he is not "apostolic" (i.e., not sent by God) or he "preaches his own inventions" (contradicts the Magisterium) or both. A true "prophet" (i.e., teacher) is both "sent by God" and abides in the Truth of the Magisterium. The person who is THE False Prophet will similarly be EITHER non-apostolic OR preach novelties OR both. In the mind of the orthodox Catholic, who is both a person who can be trusted to teach and could teach novelties that an orthodox Catholic might believe? There is only one person that could get away with this. That person would be a person who the orthodox Catholic thinks is a true Pope, but is actually an Antipope. They would listen to his novel teaching and possibly go along with it because they think that they must "follow the Pope" at all costs, otherwise they risk exiting "the barque of Peter." So if an Antipope convinced Catholics that he was the real pope when he was not, then that Antipope would be "a wolf in sheep's clothing." The sheep would think they were safe with him, but he would slaughter them. This has been the Freemasonic plan from the beginning. It is prophesied in the Bible as a warning for those "with ears to hear." No other person but a presumed Pope (who is actually an Antipope) could lead the Catholic Church (the Counterfeit Church of rupture) into destruction. That is why I said that "The False Prophet" will be an Antipope. Our Lady of LaSalette said "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." Do you think she meant that the general population of the city of Rome, Italy (which includes Jews, Muslims, atheists, Protestants, etc.) would lose "the faith?" The "faith" is by definition the Catholic faith, when Our Lady is talking. The "Rome" she is talking about is an entity that can "lose the faith." It is the body of Christ, the true Church based in Rome, that morphs into the Counterfeit Catholic Church, when it loses the faith because it follows the teaching of Rupture. That church in Rome has a "seat." It is known as the Holy See. That Holy See will morph into the Unholy See, when "Rome" loses "the faith" and becomes "the Seat of the Antichrist." Or do you reject this prophecy of Our Lady?
As I said above, in the Apocalypse, St. John is representing the person of the Antichrist as "an anointed": that single "anointed" human being has three roles as priest, prophet, and king. You need to read Daniel and 2 Thessalonians 2, which also describe this single bad guy. In Daniel, he is a single person, called "the little horn." In 2 Thessalonians 2, he is a single person called "the man of sin." There are not two people discussed in other descriptions of the same bad guy. So when the Apocalypse says, "these two were cast," it means that the single person playing both roles of Antipope (king) and False Prophet (teacher) was cast. The missing role is that of the Dragon, the third role of the unholy trinity. It is missing because the Dragon is Satan who temporarily possessed the soul of the single Antichrist is not "cast alive into the pool." He is the owner of that pool. Satan is treated differently. He is bound for 1000 years. Again, the unholy trinity, the Antichrist, who is found in a single human being, consists of (1) the Dragon, as satanic possession, (2) the (eighth head of) the Beast (Counterfeit church), and (3) the False Prophet. The dragon (defined as Satan in the Apocalypse) is the satanic-priestly role (where the man is in persona satana rather than in persona Christi). The head of the Beast is the Antipope kingly role. The False Prophet is the prophetic teaching role.
It was never for sale. It is offered for free to "those who have ears to hear." Or as St. Bernadette put it:
I know one priest and one nun, who believe this Pope is the Antichrist. They told me in confidence. This priest believes the Pope will agree with the German synod, and also feels the Warning is coming soon. The nun while meeting Pope Francis had a frightening supernatural experience. She’s terrified of Pope Francis. I can’t tell you I believe that Pope Francis is the AC, but anything is possible if God allows it. The locutions of Fr Gobbi were all about preparing Our Lady’s beloved priests. They are to be her little remnant. I think that’s incredibly significant. She was preparing her priests for what? She was preparing them, to go against the apostasy within the Hierarchy of the Church. It will be her brave priests who will suffer, fight and win for Our Lord. I’m sure of this. Her movement of priests was for this time in history. I guess PNF, we shall see if you are correct about Pope Francis. I do believe he doesn’t have to be an antipope. He could have very well been elected legally. But he doesn’t have to believe in God. Let’s see how this Pope reacts after the German Synod.
Here is Ven. Fulton Sheen's description of the Antichrist from the original radio program "Light Your Lamps" entitled "Signs of Our Times" broadcast on January 26, 1947 (link): ...the anti-Christ will not be so called, otherwise he would have no followers. He will wear no red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a spear nor wave an arrowed tail as the Mephistopheles in Faust. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather, is he described as a fallen angel, as “the Prince of this world” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, there is no sin; if there is no sin, there is no judge, and if there is no judgement then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself, that he would deceive even the elect – and certainly no devil we have ever seen in picture books could deceive the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion? He will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves. He will write books on the new idea of God to suit the way people live; induce faith in astrology so as to make not the will but the stars responsible for our sins; he will explain guilt away psychologically as repressed sex, make men shrink in shame if their fellowmen say they are not broadminded and liberal; he will identify tolerance with indifference to right and wrong; he will foster more divorces under the disguise that another partner is “vital”; he will increase love for love and decrease love for person; he will invoke religion to destroy religion; he will even speak of Christ and say that he was the greatest man who ever lived; his mission he will say will be to liberate men from the servitude of superstition and Fascism: which he will never define. But, in the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one; he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counter Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will be the mystical body of the anti-Christ that will in all externals resemble the church as the mystical body of Christ. Note the parallels in Ven. Sheen's description with what I have described above: 1. The Antichrist will be "a fallen angel," "the devil." (Dragon role) 2. The Antichrist will "deceive even the elect" and will be described as "the Great Humanitarian" who "will talk peace, prosperity and plenty." He will "identify tolerance with indifference to right and wrong" while saying that Christ was the "greatest man who ever lived." (False Prophet Role) 3. The Antichrist will set up "a counter Church," the mystical body of the anti-Christ." (Kingly Role)
This article may agree with you PNF, especially the part at the end about the Bishops and the two horns. Fr Gobbi said the AC would be the manifestation of all these false teachings (free masonry, communism). https://usralls.org/the-sea-beast-and-the-land-beast/
I think the antichrist has to be a poor imitation of Jesus, because many people will not worship a pope or alleged pope. Bishop Sheen said that the false prophet will pretend to be the pope. https://www.romancatholicman.com/th...-the-end-prophecy-of-archbishop-fulton-sheen/ So it appears they are 2 different people.
The Apocalypse is a peek, as if through a glass darkly, into the Spiritual Realm. I am unaware of any definitive magisterial interpretation, although I'm fully open to correction on that point. Nevertheless, in the midst of so much mystery, there are what appear to be concrete specifics. The whole of the Book describes the final immanence of the Supernatural into world history, but it's very difficult to put a timeline on it, which is undoubtedly intended to be the case. We'll know it if and when we see it. Of course, each one of us, at death, faces his own personal Apocalypse. May God help us.
Hi Thomas21. Two things: 1. People are already "worshipping the Pope." It is called "papolatry." There are many essays and discussions of this phenomenon online. Here is one: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/12/19/papolatry-and-progressive-privilege/. But if you search for the word "papolatry," you will find many others. That is the type of "worship" that is being referred to. The website WherePeterIs.com has made a hobby out of papolatry. The key sign of "papolatry" is the belief that the current "Pope" can never be questioned, even when he appears to contradict settled, perennial Catholic teaching. 2. If you read that Fulton Sheen quote carefully, he is not saying anywhere, that I can see, that the "False Prophet" and the "Antichrist" will be two separate people. Compare these two quotes from Sheen (in that article you quoted): The False prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit Church. .... He [the Antichrist] will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ … In the first few paragraphs, Sheen speaks only of the False Prophet because the single person presents himself FIRST as the "False Prophet." In the last part of the quoted article, Sheen only speaks of the Antichrist, because after Satan "enters him," the False Prophet morphs into the Antichrist. The story of Judas Iscariot is the model for this transformation. Sheen says as much: A world parliament of Churches. It will be emptied of all Divine content, it will be the mystical body of the anti-christ. The Mystical Body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot, and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from our Bishops. So, in Sheen's eyes, it is the same single human being that is discussed. Through both roles (False Prophet and Antichrist) the same human being is erecting the "counterfeit Church", the "counterchurch." It's just that the setup of the Counterfeit Church takes time. At a particular point (the point of the Abomination of Desolation), the Counterfeit Church will be fully-formed. To put the above in the context of this thread, the "hermeneutic of rupture" is gradually tolerated by "the false prophet." He allows others under his authority to promote the "hermeneutic of rupture." The moment that "the false prophet" openly and definitively teaches the "hermeneutic of rupture" as the "eighth head" this will mark "the abomination of desolation" as well as the beginning of the reign of the Antichrist in his Counterfeit Church. At this point, Jesus tells us (in Matthew 24) to flee that false church and don't look back (as Lot's wife did).
There are many theories about the Antichrist being of Assyrian ascending, at least I'm sure he comes from the Middle East; from a scenery of pain and destruction like Hitler emerging in Germany in 1933. The Mesopotamia is considered the cradle of civilization; not only because of eden but also because of the first cities that arose in Sumer... and the first (falses) religions; I think the great reset could choose the cradle of civilization as the seat of the antichrist's cosmopolitan capital project.
