Do you think I got that right? I'm shocked. Not because you, MyrnaM, agree with me, but because of what you agree with me about.
I've only recently begun to realise how much sense the Sedevacantist arguments make. But the idea that they might, might, be borne out by 2Thessalonians strikes me as being extraordinary to say the least.
Let's look at this again. According to St Paul, Christ will not come again until certain events have taken place. In 2Thess 2:3, he writes:
Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.....
Let's say the 'revolt' is Vatican II. That is the question posed by this thread, after all, and it seems entirely reasonable to think it might be. This suggests that the next step is the revealing of 'the man of sin, the son of perdition' - the Antichrist.
But then St Paul goes on to say, verses 7-9:
For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming...
Now let's say that 'he who now holdeth' is Peter and his successors, that is, the Pope. Either he holds the Keys, or he restrains the coming of the Antichrist, depending on which sense of the word 'hold' is meant.
But the Pope, the one who holds or restrains, has to be 'taken out of the way'.
Could this really mean that Pope Pius XII was the last one who holds/restrains, in other words, the last Pope?
Was John XXIII a false pope who instituted the 'revolt', which is Vatican II?
Was he able to do this because the 'one who holds' had been 'taken out of the way'.
And have the Conciliar false popes continued the 'revolt'?
I'm shocked, as I said above. I need advice. Does CMRI have any views on this?