what about Pope Francis .. false prophet ??

The leaders of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli etc.) from their study of the Bible came to regard the papacy as the Antichrist -- the word meaning "in the place of Christ," the ultimate enemy of Christ. Their objection to the papacy was really the foundation for their leaving the institution (they had all been Catholics, and all but Calvin had been priests as well), even more foundational perhaps than their famous objection to doctrine that brought about the Protestant watchwords, the "solas: -- "Faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone by Scripture alone" As opposed to the RCC's man-made traditions, including the "infallible" Pope's decrees.Most Christians are looking for THE Antichrist, understood to be a figure who is to appear at the end of time (which a lot of us believe is very close), and don't consider the papacy to be Antichrist as did the Reformers. As I've been learning over the last couple of years this is a big mistake. The Reformers knew what they were talking about.Whether any given Pope is going to be the final Antichrist -- or the False Prophet, who is servant to the Antichrist -- is probably less important than understanding from scripture that the institution of the papacy itself fits the portrait.Pope Francis seems to be knocking himself out ingratiating himself with everyone in the world, and in the process throwing aside a lot of Biblical doctrine, especially anything about sin, as if nobody needs to repent of sin any more to qualify for salvation, or have any regard for Christ either. If this is setting him up for some special role in the end days, time will tell. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That view is known as Preterism and it is growing in popularity, but it's only one of about half a dozen different interpretations of end times prophecy, specifically the book of Revelation but also Thessalonians and others. I think Futurism is still the most popular view, which is basically Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" viewpoint, that focuses specifically on a future end times scenario with the Antichrist at the center of it and the Church raptured off the planet for the duration. I've recently heard that Idealism is another view that's growing in popularity, which treats much of the prophecy as symbolic and allegorical. I myself have been getting more persuaded lately to the view called Historicism, which is basically the view of the Protestant Reformers that prophecy is fulfilled in many events throughout history.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are many statements in RCC official doctrine to the effect that the Pope stands in the place of God, others specifically saying Christ.

I'm not sure I completely get what dadman is saying by "human leader" but I'd have to assume he's thinking of the Pope's being considered "the head of the Church." But that's Christ's own title, given twice in the New Testament, and we are to understand that He is the only head of the Church, our only leader, Lord and master and that we have no other leader. Ministers are not leaders in the sense that the Pope is considered to be a leader, but that sense is a sense in which he is usurping the role of Jesus Christ as head of the Church.

ABE: First, no minister's interpretation of the Bible is regarded as infallible by anyone, although the Pope claims infallibility for himself. /ABEIn any case It's not about how the people treat the leader, it's about the attributes ascribed to the leader by the church's doctrine, and in the case of the RCC the Pope is called "the head of the Church." Back when I was reading up on these things before I was a Christian but was on my way there, I thought I was going to become a Catholic and read quite a bit by Catholic theologians. At one point I ran across that designation for the Pope as "head of the Church" and it bothered me so I prayed about it and the next time I opened the Bible it just happened to open to one of the two places where Christ is called "head of the Church," which I took to be His answer to my prayer. But of course that's only for me. It shouldn't be too hard to find Catholic doctrine officially spelling out these things. I'll eventually have to track it all down. There's also plenty written about the Pope by the Protestant Reformers, who, remember, had originally been Catholic priests and had no intention of leaving the RCC until they began to find out how far the papacy had gone from the Biblical revelation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It matters, Stile. Actually they are not doing the same thing at all. The Pope has been officially declared as infallible on doctrinal and moral issues, in official RCC doctrine. Nothing like that is the case with Protestant ministers. There is absolutely nothing like the Pope in Protestant circles, and the Protestant Reformers denounced the papacy in no uncertain terms.ABE: I do want to track it down because it's important to understand the RCC official position and be able to document it. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, what the people in the pews think isn't the point. I have the impression that a lot of official RCC doctrine is completely unknown to everyday Catholics and that they often disregard what they do know, especially American Catholics. But that doesn't stop it from being official doctrine that the leadership of the RCC do take very seriously. Including all those official anathemas against Protestant doctrine from the Council of Trent that are still on the books, and the various declarations that the Pope has the right to order "heretics" killed if necessary, which was the basis of the Inquisition. That's still on the books too. I'll believe all that is as meaningless as you apparently believe it is when they officially repudiate the written doctrines and take them off the books.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.