In cleaning out some of my forty year old files, I came across a back issue of (The Roman Catholic) October 1986 issue, the managing editor was Father Clarence Kelly (Bp. Kelly now). I remember his article on the (AntiChrist), because I also found my rebuttal enclosed that I had sent him on this thesis that the AntiChrist would have to be a Jew, in which HE added, “from the Tribe of Dan.”
In my rebuttal I tried to explain that ‘Jew’ was a slang word for Judeans and that the Dan Tribe were not of Judea, but one of the Israelite Tribes. However, now in re-reading both his and my thesis, I saw how much we both left out of this complicated subject and so I decided to give a much more credible account to a confusing issue.
Most Traditionalists are aware that I have since 1970 aligned these V-II popes with the AntiChrist. Only at the time most thought of him as one person, but as most of you know I unlocked the “Man of Sin” as one person and the “AntiChrist” as another person as I explained in my other writings.
Again, the purpose of this letter is the Jew AntiChrist controversy. The Tribe of Dan was one of the two which broke away from Israel, but Dan also established a temple to a false god, and is also referred to as ‘the snake in the grass,’ and is also omitted from the list of tribes in the Apocalypse.1
One could even relate Dan with Judas in the New Testament. Traitors are generally members of the faith as Dan and Judas were.
The perfect definition of AntiChrist is a “God against God.” This comes mainly from St. Paul and St. John, only St. John is the only one who uses the word AntiChrist. It is generally accepted that the AntiChrist’s would be a high priest.2 The first true AntiChrist’s were Annas and Caiphais, but it was Caiphais who plotted Christs death. Caiphais represented God the Father who has God the Son killed, hence A God against God. (AntiChrist). You will find that most of the symbols of AntiChrist is a reflection of the Hebrew faith, the two horns (Moses) 666 (the imperfect state) the synagogue of Satan, the mark on the hand and the head, (Pharisees,) etc. Now, you can understand why most thought that the future AntiChrists had to be a Jew. As I recall of all the 39 or so Antipopes throughout history, at best only one could have been a Jew? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying one of these AntiChrist popes won’t be of Jewish decent and a Catholic Convert. (Some say Paul VI was). This is possible, but the other Vatican II popes were not all Jews.
As you all know the Jewish priesthood ended in 70 A.D. and for those of you that say it ended sooner, please remember that Zachary, St. John the Baptist’s father was a priest. However, the Chair of Moses, who the Apostles were pointing to in the Scriptures did not end but got moved so the Apostles were pointing to the future high priest who will take over the chair and become a false god against the true God (AntiChrist)2. Father Kelly also concludes the absurdity of the AntiChrist ever becoming a Bishop of Rome. I wonder what he thinks NOW. Can anybody tell me what he thinks NOW.
Grace be with you, In Christ,
Joseph B. D. Saraceno
1. The Roman Catholic, pg. 31
2. The Book of Destiny. Fr. H. Kramer, 1956. pg 409. and The Apocalypse of St. John. Fr. E. S. Berry DD 1921, pg 138
More on the AntiChrist. The Great Apostasy by Joseph Saraceno 1970 – 1993 – 1999