Could A Pope Become An Antichrist ?

[Guest]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1837095' date='Apr 16 2009, 02:25 AM']I have heard, though, various prophecies from saints stating that a false Pope may someday be the anti-Christ, which is consistent with Matthew 24:[/quote]


So if a false pope would arrise the Eastern Orthadox would stand against him and still retain the keys of Heaven ? Thus fullfilling scripture that the gates of hell will not prevail.

So if a anti pope or false pope could come in the end which would mean he would be involved with the antichirst even if the antipope himself wasnt the antichrist ( since we all know that the anitchirst comes at the 6th trump before Jesus Christ, or at least I hope we all know ) that means there is the possibilty the Eastern Orthadox Church is correct about it's opinon on a pope being infallible ? Surely if this office is appointed by God no antipope could come in the end and be put there by the roman catholic church, right ?

From a orthadox website :


Nor do we believe that the Pope or any other human being is infallible.

The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes in a universal organizational structure for the Church with one particular bishop, namely the Bishop of Rome or the Pope, holding a unique position in the whole world. We Easterners do not accept any one bishop as having universal jurisdiction or authority. So the Orthodox have no Pope. What they have is really an Episcopal Synod for each local or national Church. The President of the Synod may be a Patriarch, a Catholicos, and Archbishop or even a Pope as in the case of the Coptic Church of Egypt. But no such Synod or its president can have universal jurisdiction over the Churches of other countries. Each local or national Church with its Episcopal Synod and Patriarch is autocephalous, ie. it has its own head, and does not look to any other Church to exercise authority over it.

[font="Arial Black"]This difference in turn is based on a more profound understanding of what we call the Church Catholic. The Church Catholic is not the Roman Catholic Church. It is the whole Church, in all time and space, in its qualitative and quantitative fullness. The universal Church is not the Church Catholic. The latter includes all those who have ever lived on earth as Christians in former times, ie. Christ and the Apostles, the prophets, martyrs, confessors, fathers, doctors, ordinary believers and so on. The universal Church is, of course, composed only of those now living. The Orthodox Church had no category called the universal Church. The attempt to create a category called the “ecumenical church” by the Constantinople Church, has been virtually rejected by the Orthodox tradition. [/font]

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

GoldenChild what's upr brother ?
Thanks for the emial i'll be hitten you up soon.
Peace !

[Guest]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1840157' date='Apr 19 2009, 12:49 AM']Could a pope become the antichrist? I think it's surely possible without affecting the truth of Catholicism, but on a personal basis I think the various reputable prophecies lead to the anti-christ not probably being a pope but someone else.[/quote]

ahh but the question is could a " anti pope " usher in the antichrist who comes at the 6th trump perfoming sings and wonders to decieve even the ellect if that were possibe.

[font="Arial Black"]For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. (Mark 13:22)[/font]

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1840168' date='Apr 19 2009, 12:07 AM']GoldenChild what's upr brother ?
Thanks for the emial i'll be hitten you up soon.
Peace ![/quote]

for sure, anytime.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com/"]http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com/[/url]

[font="Arial Black"]"The term “Catholic” has never been exclusively the property of the Church of Rome and it's ecclesiastic governmental divisions."[/font]

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[font="Arial Black"]"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom."[/font]He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: "They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!" But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him." St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1: "There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope").

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[Aloysius]

"we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." St. Catherine

"He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me" St. Luke 10:16, said by Our Lord to the Apostles, to whom the pope is a successor.

same statement... two different ages.

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." St. Catherine

"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." St. Matthew 23:2-3

"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?" St. Matthew 23:33, said by Our Lord to the pharisees whom he just told people to obey in verses 2-3.

or, more to the point,

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." St. Matthew 16:18-19, said by Our Lord to St. Peter

"He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!"" St. Matthew 16:23

Jesus just gave Peter the keys of authority and then called him SATAN!!! What are we to make of this?

Our Lord was using hyperbole just as St. Catherine was using hyperbole. Satan cannot incarnate, it is not within his power as a fallen angel; St. Catherine is saying of the pope, even when he gets to the point where one would be tempted to call him "satan", as Our Lord once did to the first pope, his keys of authority are still valid. just as those who sat on the seat of Moses could be "serpents" and Jesus still commanded that people obey them, so too might a successor of Peter be accurately described with the term "satan" and still require our obedience in matters of the faith.

the point is to humble ourselves, and not go around boasting about the specks in the Popes' eyes while we ourselves have beams in our own... people sometimes target the pope more harshly because he's expected to be holier than all of us, so when he does bad things it makes people feel better to tear him down. St. Catherine is warning against that; Our Lord Himself warns against that. She says be humble, and accept the Pope as you would accept Peter, because to accept Peter is to accept Christ and to reject Peter is to reject Christ.

[goldenchild17]

very true, agreed

p.s. I kind of am lost where the E. Orthodox have become such a focal point of this discussion... (not referring to the last post)

[Guest]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840251' date='Apr 19 2009, 02:30 AM']"we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." St. Catherine

"He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me" St. Luke 10:16, said by Our Lord to the Apostles, to whom the pope is a successor.

same statement... two different ages.

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." St. Catherine

"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." St. Matthew 23:2-3

"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?" St. Matthew 23:33, said by Our Lord to the pharisees whom he just told people to obey in verses 2-3.

or, more to the point,

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." St. Matthew 16:18-19, said by Our Lord to St. Peter

"He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!"" St. Matthew 16:23

Jesus just gave Peter the keys of authority and then called him SATAN!!! What are we to make of this?

Our Lord was using hyperbole just as St. Catherine was using hyperbole. Satan cannot incarnate, it is not within his power as a fallen angel; St. Catherine is saying of the pope, even when he gets to the point where one would be tempted to call him "satan", as Our Lord once did to the first pope, his keys of authority are still valid. just as those who sat on the seat of Moses could be "serpents" and Jesus still commanded that people obey them, so too might a successor of Peter be accurately described with the term "satan" and still require our obedience in matters of the faith.

the point is to humble ourselves, and not go around boasting about the specks in the Popes' eyes while we ourselves have beams in our own... people sometimes target the pope more harshly because he's expected to be holier than all of us, so when he does bad things it makes people feel better to tear him down. St. Catherine is warning against that; Our Lord Himself warns against that. She says be humble, and accept the Pope as you would accept Peter, because to accept Peter is to accept Christ and to reject Peter is to reject Christ.[/quote]


Peace Al
Im not attacking the behaviors of the popes. What i'm doing is bringing up the question if the whole church has to submit to his authority ? The Eastern Orthadox think not and that is what I am curious about. Many in this thread have said an antipope could come at the end. So if an antipope comes that means he will be put there by the roman catholic church correct ? If this is the case then that would seem to me that the Eastern Orthadox Church is correct in there stance about the infallibilty of the pope. For if a anti pope comes at the end and decieves believers of Christ into recieving the mark of the beast that would be a horrible thing would it not ?

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1840252' date='Apr 19 2009, 02:32 AM']very true, agreed

p.s. I kind of am lost where the E. Orthodox have become such a focal point of this discussion... (not referring to the last post)[/quote]

Becasue they do not believe in the infallibity of the pope therefore if a antipope came in the end appointed by the roman cathoilc church they would speak out against him as would all true christians. People dont want to admit a antichrist is coming that will be satan himself performing miracles and even making fire come down from heaven. Church militant have said in this thread that it may very well be possible that a antipope would come in the end. So again I ask if a antipope is to come in the end to work with the antichrist (who comes at the 6th trump before Jesus Christ at the 7th) how can the Roman Catholic Church lay claim to the Pope alone has the keys of heaven ? If indeed a antipope would come in the end it would be very clear that he doesnt have the keys of heaven.

[Aloysius]

an anti-pope is by definition one who does not truly hold the office of papacy. perhaps the anti-Catholic elements within the Church will dislike a duly elected pope and gather together to elect their own pope which many of the Church will follow.

a validly elected pope cannot teach error in faith or morals. I know golden will be itching to say something about this lol, but it's true that if the pope is truly validly elected he cannot bind the Church in error because the Holy Spirit will prevent it from happening.

in modern times, we're used to anti-popes like "Pius XIII" (you can google him if you're interested) who have no mainstream following whatsoever. but there have been times in the past where anti-popes have commanded a significant following from the Church quite scandalously because they weren't validly elected by the college of cardinals and thus they were not true successors to Peter and did not then truly sit upon the chair of Peter.

the anti-Christ will not truly sit on the chair of Peter, because if he did, the anti-Christ would have submitted his will to the overwhelming power of the Holy Spirit. the anti-Christ will be more cunning than that, he would not establish himself in a place where God has actually put the only true limit on human free will that He has ever enforced through interference in human free will: because He makes it impossible for a pope to do any action that would bind the whole Church in error. there is no way the anti-Christ would sit on the chair of Peter, then. but he might pretend to... he might get a group of French, German, and Austrian bishops who have had enough of someone like Benedict XVI to get together and say "this person is our new Pope" and maybe even command a significant following throughout the world... but the Pope will never be corrupted in such a way. it is impossible. he cannot teach error on faith and morals, and the anti-Christ needs to do so so that he can deceive.

[Aloysius]

The Eastern Orthodox would prefer an ecclesiology in which all Romans must submit to the Pope as the Patriarch of the Roman Church. they hold that the current pope (as well as all of those of the second millennium) is in a type of schism and heresy, but they would not believe in a Church deprived of hierarchy.

why don't you see an anti-Christ as becoming Patriarch of Constantinople? or Patriarch of Moscow? Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is just as exploitable to this particular problem, and in general would use the same verses about "he who hears you hears me" and the seat upon which they sit to justify why the various Churches must be subject at least to their own patriarchs.

[Guest]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840256' date='Apr 19 2009, 03:42 AM']an anti-pope is by definition one who does not truly hold the office of papacy. perhaps the anti-Catholic elements within the Church will dislike a duly elected pope and gather together to elect their own pope which many of the Church will follow.

[font="Arial Black"]Ok that is very interesting and I could see how that could happen.[/font]

a validly elected pope cannot teach error in faith or morals. I know golden will be itching to say something about this lol, but it's true that if the pope is truly validly elected he cannot bind the Church in error because the Holy Spirit will prevent it from happening.

in modern times, we're used to anti-popes like "Pius XIII" (you can google him if you're interested) who have no mainstream following whatsoever. but there have been times in the past where anti-popes have commanded a significant following from the Church quite scandalously because they weren't validly elected by the college of cardinals and thus they were not true successors to Peter and did not then truly sit upon the chair of Peter.

[font="Arial Black"]interesting.[/font]

the anti-Christ will not truly sit on the chair of Peter, because if he did, the anti-Christ would have submitted his will to the overwhelming power of the Holy Spirit.

[font="Arial Black"]The question im posing is if a pope could usher in the antichrist not be the antichrist himself. Perhaps the false prophet ? Although I do see what you are saying and you probally would say he could not become a false prophet either. Understood.[/font]

the anti-Christ will be more cunning than that, he would not establish himself in a place where God has actually put the only true limit on human free will that He has ever enforced through interference in human free will: because He makes it impossible for a pope to do any action that would bind the whole Church in error. there is no way the anti-Christ would sit on the chair of Peter, then. but he might pretend to... he might get a group of French, German, and Austrian bishops who have had enough of someone like Benedict XVI to get together and say "this person is our new Pope" and maybe even command a significant following throughout the world... but the Pope will never be corrupted in such a way. it is impossible. he cannot teach error on faith and morals, and the anti-Christ needs to do so so that he can deceive.[/quote]

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840257' date='Apr 19 2009, 03:47 AM']The Eastern Orthodox would prefer an ecclesiology in which all Romans must submit to the Pope as the Patriarch of the Roman Church. they hold that the current pope (as well as all of those of the second millennium) is in a type of schism and heresy, but they would not believe in a Church deprived of hierarchy.

why don't you see an anti-Christ as becoming Patriarch of Constantinople? or Patriarch of Moscow? Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is just as exploitable to this particular problem, and in general would use the same verses about "he who hears you hears me" and the seat upon which they sit to justify why the various Churches must be subject at least to their own patriarchs.[/quote]


Ya I just dont know. I'm trying to learn and figure things out that's why i'm posting this stuff.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[kafka]

I can lend a view not yet expressed here, yet in the end why have you asked this question DB?