Who or what is the antichrist?

[Zooey]

Lisa4Catholics:

I guess the false prophet would work kind of like the Benjamin Creme guy in this website and the anti-Christ would make claims like the maeytria dude This site is freaky:nope:
share-international.org/background/FAQ/faq_main.htm#anchor9

I agree! It seriously creeped me out…
We could argue forever about whether “antichrist” refers to one person, several/many people, or a system/group. This is probably immaterial. What is important is that: (A) Evil exists; (B) Satan is real, & wants to destroy as many people as possible; and (C) We (believers in Christ) win in the end, because Jesus Christ has all ready defeated the devil by His death & resurrection.
This does not make the forces of evil happy. That is why there is so much deception in the world. Satan is after all, the father of lies.
Jesus is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Antichrist is the opposite in every way…
God bless.

 

[Contarini]

Lovez4God:

Does anyone understand this guy VERN? What is he saying? I don’t get his intentions in all of this. He makes it all sound too good to be true. Like he has the objective truth. I’m sure he doesn’t understand what objective truth is. If he did, he wouldn’t be so critical of others. He doesn’t have the authority to interpret the Catholic faith. He is not qualify to judge what the Church teaches. Christ would never want someone like him to interpret His Church’s teachings. It is not the way she teaches at all! He is putting burden on others because he cannot go after the doctrines themselves. So he comes after the more vulnerable members to denounce their views and subjecting his view over all others. I don’t get why he’s so harsh on Catholics when he is Catholic himself. Sometimes, I wonder if he’s for the Church or against her. In the court of God, who would be guilty, the accuser or the accused? Make no mistake about it, if you are hypercritical of others, Jesus would do the same to you. The way you live will be the way Christ will judge you. Practically everything he said were human knowledge and studies. There is absolutely no spirit of truth. Absolutely aggressive. What he rejects in living are the central teachings of Jesus. Love, faith, hope, humility, compassion, and meekness. He is so conceit that he never recognizes his past errors even if they are minor, whether it be in words or thoughts. Now, he is attacking other’s words for sure. He is so used to the life of governing others, demanding others, ordering others, and criticizing others. I’m sure in his state, people are more submissive and he recognizes that. He doesn’t know there is a whole world out there and people will think him differently. He doesn’t understand other’s intentions, if he did he wouldn’t be so critical to everyone. Half of the terms he mentioned, people aren’t even aware of. How can you accuse someone of something when they never heard of such a term? Now if Jesus was here, who would be guilt? This brings back stories in the Bible of the Pharisees and those erroneous leaders. They were always accusing others for not living right and not obeying the laws. We all know what Jesus said of them.

Just watch, he will analyze everything that I’ve just said above.

Lovez4God,

You are way out of line. I don’t see how you get the right to judge Vern the way you are doing. He’s expressing an opinion forcefully, which is what these boards are for. If you don’t like his views, stay away from his posts. I don’t see what he has done to justify this vitriolic attack. He’s rocking your boat a bit–so what? That’s healthy. Maybe Catholicism isn’t limited to the views you happen to have picked up and assumed as normal.

Edwin

 

[blainethepaine]

Hi all,

I just thought I’d add a few quotes from some of my sources.

“All the fathers and theologians unanimously concur in this belief that the Antichrist will be an individual person. In fact Bellarmine and Suarez, two famous Jesuit theologians-Bellarmine being also a saint and doctor of the Church-teach that the personal existence of the Antichrist must be considered an object of divine faith.”
Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., “The Antichrist”. Roman Catholic Books, 1981. p. 18 (with Nihil Obstat from the Rev. William B. Smith, S.T.D. and Imprimatur from the Rev. Joseph T. O’Keefe)

Also, I know Ott’s book was quoted above, but I think giving the rest of the quote will help.

“The historical interpretation associated with a particular time (Nero, Caligula, and others) as well as the historico-religious explanation, which seeks the origin of the idea of the Antichrist in Babylonian and Persian myths, are to be rejected”.
Ludwig Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”. TAN, 1960, p. 487 (with Nihil Obstat from Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan and Imprimatur from Cornelius)

Also there seems to be some confusion as to the reference in the Catechism to the Antichrist. In this instance it seems reasonable to refer to the orginal latin text. The relevant latin says:

“Fallacia religiosa suprema est Anti-Christi, id est, cuiusdam pseudo-messianismi in quo homo se ipsum glorificat loco Dei Eiusque Messiae qui in carne venit”

If the writers had intended to express that the actual deception was the Antichrist, then the text would read “Fallacia religiosa suprema est Anti-Christus”. Instead, the genitive “Anti-Christi” appears. The genitive implies possession. Therefore while the text may be somewhat unclear in English, the Latin is pretty clear. The deception is that “of the Antichrist”, not the Antichrist itself. Therefore it would be just as correct to translate the text with “The supreme religious deception is the Antichrist’s”. The deception belongs to the man of sin so to speak, but it is not the man of sin itself. This deception instead seems to be referring to the biblical “mystery of iniquity”, which while associated with Antichrist (St. Paul’s “man of sin”), it is not the same “entity”.

The belief that the Antichrist will come from Jewish extraction is quite ancient. Several Church Fathers taught this (specifically that he will emerge from the tribe of Dan), but there is no universal consensus here.

There is however universal consensus on the personal nature of Antichrist. I think a lot of the confusion sets in because the modern world has lost all sense of biblical typology. Of course Nero was a “type” of Antichrist, just as were Hitler, Stalin, Hilary Clinton, whatever . But they are “types” that point to the eschaton.

The Devil “apeing” the actions of God is hardly Millenarianism. It is a widely taught idea from the Fathers of the Church.

Peace to all,
jack

 

[Lovez4God]

blainethepaine:

The Devil “apeing” the actions of God is hardly Millenarianism. It is a widely taught idea from the Fathers of the Church.

Peace to all,
jack

That’s what I’ve been trying to say all alone!!! This guy Vern is calling ‘heresy’ on me, for saying that antichrist may be a person.


He puts in this ‘co-equal’ to God that got me really mad!!
All in all, everything is cool if nobody is blasphemous.:dancing:
:clapping:

 

[tuopaolo]

blainethepaine:

Also there seems to be some confusion as to the reference in the Catechism to the Antichrist. In this instance it seems reasonable to refer to the orginal latin text. The relevant latin says:

If the writers had intended to express that the actual deception was the Antichrist, then the text would read “Fallacia religiosa suprema est Anti-Christus”. Instead, the genitive “Anti-Christi” appears. The genitive implies possession. Therefore while the text may be somewhat unclear in English, the Latin is pretty clear. The deception is that “of the Antichrist”, not the Antichrist itself. Therefore it would be just as correct to translate the text with “The supreme religious deception is the Antichrist’s”. The deception belongs to the man of sin so to speak, but it is not the man of sin itself. This deception instead seems to be referring to the biblical “mystery of iniquity”, which while associated with Antichrist (St. Paul’s “man of sin”), it is not the same “entity”.

Great post, jack. I hope vern will read this part of your post and also the rest of it which was all very good. I’ll refrain from making a comment about how some people … wait that would not be refraining

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lovez4God:

That’s what I’ve been trying to say all alone!!! This guy Vern is calling ‘heresy’ on me, for saying that antichrist may be a person.


He puts in this ‘co-equal’ to God that got me really mad!!
All in all, everything is cool if nobody is blasphemous.:dancing:
:clapping:

No, it’s tbe parallel you draw between God and Satan that’s flirting with manacheanism.

 

[vern_humphrey]

blainethepaine:

Hi all,

I just thought I’d add a few quotes from some of my sources.

Also, I know Ott’s book was quoted above, but I think giving the rest of the quote will help.

Also there seems to be some confusion as to the reference in the Catechism to the Antichrist. In this instance it seems reasonable to refer to the orginal latin text. The relevant latin says:

If the writers had intended to express that the actual deception was the Antichrist, then the text would read “Fallacia religiosa suprema est Anti-Christus”. Instead, the genitive “Anti-Christi” appears. The genitive implies possession. Therefore while the text may be somewhat unclear in English, the Latin is pretty clear. The deception is that “of the Antichrist”, not the Antichrist itself. Therefore it would be just as correct to translate the text with “The supreme religious deception is the Antichrist’s”. The deception belongs to the man of sin so to speak, but it is not the man of sin itself. This deception instead seems to be referring to the biblical “mystery of iniquity”, which while associated with Antichrist (St. Paul’s “man of sin”), it is not the same “entity”.

The belief that the Antichrist will come from Jewish extraction is quite ancient. Several Church Fathers taught this (specifically that he will emerge from the tribe of Dan), but there is no universal consensus here.

There is however universal consensus on the personal nature of Antichrist. I think a lot of the confusion sets in because the modern world has lost all sense of biblical typology. Of course Nero was a “type” of Antichrist, just as were Hitler, Stalin, Hilary Clinton, whatever . But they are “types” that point to the eschaton.

The Devil “apeing” the actions of God is hardly Millenarianism. It is a widely taught idea from the Fathers of the Church.

Peace to all,
jack

The Devil “aping the actions of God” is not millenarianism. Millenairianism is seeking to place a historical frame on those things that are outside history – a good example is the “Left Behind” series. Catholic should avoid digging too deep into “predictions” and making flat statements about the end.

Manachaenism (or dualism) ascribes to Satan (or some other evil power) a paralleism to God. To say that Satan can do, of himself, what only God can do is Manachaenism. To bring the “aping the actions of God” concept too far, so that Satan acts by his own power as a co-equal to God is something Catholics must also avoid.

Now the Antichrist may be a single man, a group of men, or a system – none of these positions are forbidded by the Church.

 

[LoneRanger]

[stolen from Jimmy Akins article “False Profit”]

We thus must face the possibility that much of the “cosmic disaster” imagery in Revelation and other prophetic passages is impressionistic, meant to figuratively express the inner terror and anguish of those who live through the predicted events, but that it is not meant as a literal description of what you would see if you were recording the events with a camcorder. The language involves an exterior projection of what people will feel inwardly.

Taking this into account, how might the book of Revelation be understood? One theory is that it involves God’s judgment on the pagan Roman Empire, which persecuted Christians. There is significant evidence for this.

Consider the Beast of Revelation: It has seven heads, which we are told are both seven mountains (17:9) and seven kings who reign sequentially (17:10). The Beast considered as a person is specially identified as one in this line of kings (17:11). Further, he compels people to worship it on pain of martyrdom (13:12, 15), and his mark is 666, which is “the number of a man” (literal translation of 13:18). What are we to make of this?

The seven mountains have often been identified with the seven hills of Rome. (Note that Vatican Hill is not one of these, as it is on the other side of the Tiber River. The seven hills are the Aventine, Caelian, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Quirinal, and Viminal.) In early Christian history, did Rome have a line of kings? Yes, the Caesars (as in “We have no king but Caesar,” John 19:15). Was there a cult of worship around them? Again, yes. Julius and Augustus Caesar were declared divine after their deaths. Caligula forcefully demanded to be worshiped as a god during his life. And Claudius and Nero also were worshiped as gods while living.

Did any have the number 666? One did. Revelation 13:18 invites the reader to calculate the number of the Beast, and the logical way to do this is by adding up the numeric values of a person’s name, since in ancient languages the letters of the alphabet doubled as numbers. (The Arabic numbering system hadn’t been introduced yet.) The reader is given enough clues about the Beast to tell whose names should be considered as candidates, and when one adds up the numbers for “Nero Caesar” in Hebrew and Aramaic, it turns out to total 666.

Finally, the Beast persecuted those who did not worship it, as Christians would refuse to do. Did Nero persecute Christians? Indeed he did. In fact, he executed two of the apostles—Peter and Paul!

Nero thus is a very good candidate for being the Beast of Revelation. This would make a good bit of the book of Revelation apply to the first century rather than the twenty-first.

What would the Church make of this viewpoint? As we have noted, the Church does not have an official interpretation of Revelation, but a historical rather than futuristic identification of the Beast is suggested by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Discussing the sin of idolatry, it notes that “many martyrs died for not adoring ‘the Beast’ (cf. Rev. 13–14) refusing even to simulate such worship.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

[stolen from Jimmy Akins article “False Profit”]

We thus must face the possibility that much of the “cosmic disaster” imagery in Revelation and other prophetic passages is impressionistic, meant to figuratively express the inner terror and anguish of those who live through the predicted events, but that it is not meant as a literal description of what you would see if you were recording the events with a camcorder. The language involves an exterior projection of what people will feel inwardly.

Taking this into account, how might the book of Revelation be understood? One theory is that it involves God’s judgment on the pagan Roman Empire, which persecuted Christians. There is significant evidence for this.

Nero thus is a very good candidate for being the Beast of Revelation. This would make a good bit of the book of Revelation apply to the first century rather than the twenty-first.

What would the Church make of this viewpoint? As we have noted, the Church does not have an official interpretation of Revelation, but a historical rather than futuristic identification of the Beast is suggested by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Discussing the sin of idolatry, it notes that “many martyrs died for not adoring ‘the Beast’ (cf. Rev. 13–14) refusing even to simulate such worship.”

As I have posted before, Revelation 13,18 is discussed in footnotes in the New American Bible for Catholics:

18 8 Wisdom is needed here; one who understands can calculate the number of the beast, for it is a number that stands for a person. His number is six hundred and sixty-six. The footnote (8) reads:

8 [18] Each of the letters of the alphabet in Hebrew as well as in Greek has a numerical value. Many possible combinations of letters will add up to 666, and many candidates have been nominated for this infamous number. The most likely is the emperor Caesar Nero (see the note on Rev 13:3), the Greek form of whose name in Hebrew letters gives the required sum. (The Latin form of this name equals 616, which is the reading of a few manuscripts.) Nero personifies the emperors who viciously persecuted the church. It has also been observed that “6” represents imperfection, falling short of the perfect number “7,” and is represented here in a triple or superlative form.

This footnote refers to footnote (3):

3 [3] This may be a reference to the popular legend that Nero would come back to life and rule again after his death (which occurred in A.D. 68 from a self-inflicted stab wound in the throat); cf Rev 13:14; Rev 17:8. Domitian (A.D. 81-96) embodied all the cruelty and impiety of Nero. Cf Introduction.

It seems pertty clear that John is referring to Nero and Domitian here – the first and second Emperors to officially persecute Christians.

There are a few other points – Roman citizens had special rights and priviliges in those days, and many “Roman citizens” got their citizenship through military service. Often discharged soldiers were planted as colonies – where they were resented by the locals for their rights and economic domination. The “mark of the beast” sounds very much like the brand placed on a Legionnary which served both to deter desertion and to identify the bearer as one entitled to various priviliges after service.

In general, it is always best to study the conditions of the times when studying the bible – because you are right that there is strong evidence that much of Revelation is about what was happening at the time it was written – despite what the supermarket tabloids would have you believe, it is not a prediction of the weather in the 21st century.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[blainethepaine]

Hi Vern,

I wanted to address a few of your comments.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating a millenial position. I think this is a misunderstanding. If a millenium is being referred to at all, I think it is that Millenium which the Devil and his “Messiah” would seek to establish. I don’t think anyone on the forum here is advocating support of that .

The belief that Satan will “ape” the true Messiah with a “Christ” of his own would only be Manichaeism if those espousing it claimed it was Satan himself (or another fallen Spirit) which became incarnate. This was the belief of St. Hippolytus, but it was later rejected by the Church. Here is another quote from Fr. Paceli which seems relevant:

“For example, it is stated categorically that the Antichrist will be Satan incarnate. This is a metaphysical impossibility, for only God, or one of the divine persons can possess two natures in one person. An incarnation of Satan whereby he would possess two natures-human and angelic-in one angelic person would call for infinite power, something a mere creature cannot have.”
ibid. p.16

That is why the Devil has traditionally been said to “ape” God. He “apes” the Lord in the same way a chimp might “ape” a person. It may seem uncanny in a way, but a chimp acting like a person is still a creature acting outside its everyday capacities. Ultimately, it can never be a human. Christians ought to recognize that there is no creature possessing the substantial potencies to “copy” the hypostatic union. Only God can do that. Therefore, when a Christian speaks of Satan apeing God, he (or she) recognizes that there is something intrinsically wrong with the whole act. Satan can never be on an equal footing with God, because he is infinitely inferior.

While none of those positions may be strictly “forbidden” by the Church (i.e the identity of Antichrist as either a person or institution), the ancient and universal consensus of the Fathers is that there will be a Great Antichrist at the end of time, and he will be a human being. I feel much more comfortable amidst this consensus than on any modern ideas (not trying to bash you, just telling how I feel ).

Also, Nero may be a good candidate for “the Beast” (the first I’m assuming) of Revelation. However, this cannot be the be-all and end-all of Revelation. Revelation has been universally understood as a prophecy by the earliest Fathers. Virtually every theologian up until the 20th century found some reference or another to the Antichrist to come in St. John’s Apocalypse. This is why Ott (in my above quote) stressed that definitively identifying the first Beast as Nero and leaving it at that was an opinion to be rejected. If we convince ourselves that things meant as prophecy in some way have already occured, we might just fail to recognize when the “man of sin” is revealed.

Peace to you,
jack

 

[vern_humphrey]

blainethepaine:

Hi Vern,

I wanted to address a few of your comments.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating a millenial position. I think this is a misunderstanding. If a millenium is being referred to at all, I think it is that Millenium which the Devil and his “Messiah” would seek to establish. I don’t think anyone on the forum here is advocating support of that .

The belief that Satan will “ape” the true Messiah with a “Christ” of his own would only be Manichaeism if those espousing it claimed it was Satan himself (or another fallen Spirit) which became incarnate. This was the belief of St. Hippolytus, but it was later rejected by the Church. Here is another quote from Fr. Paceli which seems relevant:

That is why the Devil has traditionally been said to “ape” God. He “apes” the Lord in the same way a chimp might “ape” a person. It may seem uncanny in a way, but a chimp acting like a person is still a creature acting outside its everyday capacities. Ultimately, it can never be a human. Christians ought to recognize that there is no creature possessing the substantial potencies to “copy” the hypostatic union. Only God can do that. Therefore, when a Christian speaks of Satan apeing God, he (or she) recognizes that there is something intrinsically wrong with the whole act. Satan can never be on an equal footing with God, because he is infinitely inferior.

While none of those positions may be strictly “forbidden” by the Church (i.e the identity of Antichrist as either a person or institution), the ancient and universal consensus of the Fathers is that there will be a Great Antichrist at the end of time, and he will be a human being. I feel much more comfortable amidst this consensus than on any modern ideas (not trying to bash you, just telling how I feel ).

Also, Nero may be a good candidate for “the Beast” (the first I’m assuming) of Revelation. However, this cannot be the be-all and end-all of Revelation. Revelation has been universally understood as a prophecy by the earliest Fathers. Virtually every theologian up until the 20th century found some reference or another to the Antichrist to come in St. John’s Apocalypse. This is why Ott (in my above quote) stressed that definitively identifying the first Beast as Nero and leaving it at that was an opinion to be rejected. If we convince ourselves that things meant as prophecy in some way have already occured, we might just fail to recognize when the “man of sin” is revealed.

Peace to you,
jack

Thanks very much for your thoughtful post, Jack.

There are two points here – millianialism and manecheanism.

In neither case have I accused anyone – I have used words like “a whiff” of millianialism or “flirting with” manecheanism.

In the first case, going into great details about predictions is the “whiff,” as I think you would agree. The Antichrist will be defined by action, not by family lineage or anything like that.

Satan can only “ape” God to a limited degree – most specifically, he cannot CREATE a messenger, nor can he CONTROL one. What humans do, they do of their own free will, not because they are puppets of Satan.

 

[Lovez4God]

vern humphrey:

No, it’s tbe parallel you draw between God and Satan that’s flirting with manacheanism.

Vern, now you are making a little bit of sense!
parallel…hmmz…I didn’t mean for it to be in a parrarel way…I guess that would have lead to your manacheanism if you did your homework.
vern humphrey:

Manachaenism (or dualism) ascribes to Satan (or some other evil power) a paralleism to God. To say that Satan can do, of himself, what only God can do is Manachaenism. To bring the “aping the actions of God” concept too far, so that Satan acts by his own power as a co-equal to God is something Catholics must also avoid.

Now the Antichrist may be a single man, a group of men, or a system – none of these positions are forbidded by the Church.

Vern, I said messenger of Satan*.* Not Satan literally*.* Someone or something, in the past or in the future, who proclaims to be the Messiah in order to deceive people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lovez4God:

Vern, now you are making a little bit of sense!
parallel…hmmz…I didn’t mean for it to be in a parrarel way…I guess that would have lead to your manacheanism if you did your homework.

Vern, I said messenger of Satan*.* Not Satan literally*.* Someone or something, in the past or in the future, who proclaims to be the Messiah in order to deceive people.

Thank you. And I apologize for offending you.

But let me point out that Satan cannot have a servant or messenger – humans have free will from God, so the Antichrist must be more than a puppet or a messenger. Satan does not have the power to control him.

If Satan COULD send a messenger, that would indeed be manecheanism – true duality, with Satan having powers reserved to God.

 

[Lovez4God]

oy, you think osama may be? hehe:thumbsup:

 

[grammyof3]

Now Vern is right here. Frankly, the Church has no difinitive teaching about whether the Man of Perdition will be a Jew. Could he be? Sure! Could he not be? Yes, he could. Whether he (or it, as in an Antichrist SYSTEM) is a Jew is not relevant. The Catechism rightly says that the Antichrist will be a “supreme religious deception,” part of the “final unleashing of evil” before the end of the world.

“A supreme religious deception” kind of sounds like the chaos in the seminaries of the 50’s and 60’s with flaming homosexuality and Russian agents infiltrating the seminaries ( testified to by a Russian Official before the House Committee on Anti American activities) …then those priests and Bishops (products of those seminaries) with an Anti-Christ agenda liberalizing and moderizing the Church, under the guise of Vatican II and splitting The Church from within; combined with the resulting scandal.

We have yet to see what will be left when The Church survives this “supreme religious deception”. Entire diocese have begun to liquidate all of their churches. 70 % of all remaining Catholic clergy are now over the age of 70 years.

Some say when The Church rises again from the ashes, having defeated this attack of the anti-christ that will be the second coming of Christ, in the form of His Church.

 

[Chazemataz]

Read this site: frankcaw.com/ however I wonder where he gets his info???

 

[Gracie2004]

Personally, I don’t think any of us can discern who or where or when. But I do know from reading, that many Imam’s now claim that Bin Ladin is the one they have been waiting on to save the world from US. (just thought I’d mention that since someone brought him up).

I think the great anti christ could be ANY person who denies Christ. There are many anti-christs throughout history.

I think it’s probably much more important to put the emphasis on our own actions, and how we affect the Christian community as a whole than speculating on who, where, or when.

 

[Calbreese]

Please see www.istheBeast.com that explains the Beasts and AntiChristism in detail, for free.