Author Topic: Is Vatican II the revolt that St Paul talks about in 2Thessalonians? (Read 2701 times)

awkwardcustomer · « **on:** October 13, 2014, 08:51:37 AM »

The time of Christ's Second Coming is, of course, unknown to any man. But certain signs have been given to us which describe the situation prior to this event. For example, according to St Matthew's Gospel, Ch24:

False prophets will arise; there will be wars and rumours of wars; there will be pestilences, famines and earthquakes; Christians will be hated for the sake of Christ's name and will be put to death; many will be scandalized, and will betray one another, and will hate one another; the gospel will be preached in the whole world; we will see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place.

St Paul also describes certain conditions that have to be fulfilled before Christ's Coming, in 2 Thessalonians Ch2, v1-5:

Quote

And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 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, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Could the 'revolt' that St Paul refers to here be Vatican II?

Or could Vatican II be the last stage of the revolt which began with the Protestant Reformation and continued through various stages right into the Church? Either way, it is difficult to conceive of a revolt that could be more deadly and profound than the Council.

In which case, if Vatican II is the revolt, or the last stage of the revolt, the only condition that needs to be fulfilled before Christ's Coming is that the "man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition......".

Brennus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2014, 09:57:54 AM »

I usually assume that I will not live to see the end of the world and that I am not living in apocalyptic times. It leads to too much craziness to spend one's time digging into all that and trying to figure it out. It is behavior more appropriate to a Evangelical Pentecostal loon.

However, a moderate amount of reading and speculation would seem appropriate so, I'll add my two cents to this.

There is something to this line of thinking that intrigues me, that isn't usually brought up. If you remember, in St. Paul's epistle, this revolt comes after the “one who restrains” is removed. The Church Fathers always said the one who retrains is the Roman Emperor. After the fall of the Roman Emperor, the Church authorities mainly held that the role passed on to The King of the Franks (Charlemagne) at least in the West. After him, then, we could assume it goes to the The King of France and or The Holy Roman Emperor, and after him, the Austrian Emperor. If we want to be absolutely certain we are covering all our bases, we could include the Eastern Emperor and then, after he is gone, the Russian Czar.

So, what happened at the end of World War I? These heirs to the Roman Dignity were removed. Then, a generation later, we get Vatican II.

It is also curious that, St. Pius X was elected because the Austrian Emperor imposed a veto on the election of Cardinal Rampolla. This right to an imperial veto may or may not have been valid anymore but it does seem to have helped elect Pius X. However, after his election, the Holy Father outlawed such vetoes. I wouldn't fault the saint for doing this, as his motives were good – righteous indignation at what seemed an infringement on the sovereignty of the church. Nevertheless, what if that was just God's way of allowing the restrainer to be removed?

I do not know. These are all speculations. What has befallen the Church since Vatican II does look like The Great Final Apostasy, it really does. Yet we can never be sure until it is all over. It may end up just being a great big schism and the restrainer is someone other than a Romanic monarch.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2014, 04:09:39 PM »

Brennus,
Thanks for this. I take it that this is where St Paul refers to the "one who restrains", in verses 6&7.

Quote

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

I agree we shouldn't dwell too much on the Apocalypse and its timing, but neither should we ignore it. It's a question of balance, I think. Perhaps Catholics are somewhat reluctant to discuss this subject, for fear of sounding too much like a mad Evangelical Protestant. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to revisit the writings of the Church Fathers on this.

Thank you for the information and ideas about the identity of the "one who restrains". Very interesting. I hadn't heard much about this before.

If not St Pius X, then who could it be, I wonder.

Just kidding. Best not to lose sleep over this.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #3 on:** October 14, 2014, 03:08:59 PM »

Brennus,

Is it the 'one who holds' or the 'one who restrains'? According to the Douay Rheims, it is the 'one who holds' or 'holdeth'.

Could this refer to Peter, who holds the Keys? In other words, to the Pope?

Could it be that the Pope has been removed, that we are now Sedevacante, and have been since Pope Pius XII, who was the last 'one who holds' the Keys.

The 'revolt' then began with Vatican II, although it had been working before that, but couldn't actually take place until the 'one who holds' - the Pope - had been 'taken out of the way'.

Of course, Pope Pius XII could also be the last 'one who restrains', who has also been 'taken out of the way'.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2014, 04:02:11 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Brennus,

Is it the 'one who holds' or the 'one who restrains'? According to the Douay Rheims, it is the 'one who holds' or 'holdeth'.

Could this refer to Peter, who holds the Keys? In other words, to the Pope?

Could it be that the Pope has been removed, that we are now Sedevacante, and have been since Pope Pius XII, who was the last 'one who holds' the Keys.

The 'revolt' then began with Vatican II, although it had been working before that, but couldn't actually take place until the 'one who holds' - the Pope - had been 'taken out of the way'.

Of course, Pope Pius XII could also be the last 'one who restrains', who has also been 'taken out of the way'.

My vote is, you got that right!

ggreg · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2014, 04:47:38 PM »

I can never read these prophecies without thinking about Michael Palin and the look on the face of the poor guy trying to understand him.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2014, 06:16:50 PM »

MyrnaM,
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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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?

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2014, 06:23:35 PM »

ggreg,

I love reading your posts. Honestly.

But come on. I'm having a bit of a crisis here.

Do you have an opinion on this.

Seriously.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2014, 06:27:31 PM »

awkward

I always agree with people when they make good logic sense. Restraint meaning in the sense that an act of holding something back. A True pope will hold back error from entering the teachings of Christ, no doubt about it.

It is the opinion of CMRI that Pope Pius XII was the last True Pope.

Yes, although we are Roman Catholic holding the sedevacantism position, that is the only position that makes sense of what is going on in Rome today.

http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml

Quote

Who is this one “who is at present restraining it... until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed”? Perhaps Pope Leo XIII has the answer in his Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael:

“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

- See more at: http://www.cmri.org/sedevac.htm#sthash.o7qXfOCD.dpuf

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #9 on:** October 17, 2014, 08:43:07 AM »

GJC,

Thank you. I was aware of this. There has obviously been much speculation on the identity of the 'one who holds' who has to be 'taken out of the way' before the Antichrist comes.

And suggesting that this is the Pope is more speculation. It seems to fit though. Let's say that Vatican II is the 'revolt' that St Paul talks about. It had been gathering in the shadows for some time, but couldn't come out into the open until the 'one who holds' - the Pope - was 'taken out of the way'.

This was achieved with the death of Pope Pius XII, the last Pope. The 'one who holds 'had indeed been 'taken out of the way', and the fake pope John XXIII brought the 'revolt' out into the open by convening Vatican II. And the 'revolt' continues to this day, getting worse and more blatant all the time.

This is speculation, I agree. But it would suggest that there will be no restoration or period of peace, because next on the agenda, according to St Paul, is the coming of the Antichrist.

And here's a thought about the La Salette prophecy that 'Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. According to St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Irenaeus and St Hippolytus, the Antichrist will sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Therefore this prophecy of La Salette contradicts the Church Fathers.

ggreg · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2014, 09:07:22 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

ggreg,

I love reading your posts. Honestly.

But come on. I'm having a bit of a crisis here.

Do you have an opinion on this.

Seriously.

Yes. I'll try to base my opinion on a purely naturalistic argument as I'm kind of burned out on the prophecy stuff.

The economy is held together with piano wire and string. It's also very interconnected thanks to international finance and credit netting agreements and credit derivatives. Stuff is used as collateral which is frankly pretty hard to value and money lent on that stuff. Money is backed by debt.

MOST of what is produced is unnecssary tosh (think about how you spend money and what you could do without if push came to shove) probably MOST of your weekly spend, so the economies ability to contract is arguably greater than it ever was in history. People care about money and stuff and so a sudden collapse in living standards would have some strong effects.

US is losing power and political influence and even the total dominance of the dollar looks shaky. This could have some profound implications. It really leaves the US dominant in one area, military. At some point the pieces on the board are going to move. But how? Who knows?

So my usual response to these sorts of things is "convergence baby, convergence", by which I mean that events appear to be heading to a crisis point rather than merely be unrelated in time and that still looks to be the case. If there is a God it would seem to me that He has to put a stop to this fairly soon or society is going to break. Even now I am constantly talking to CEOs in their 40s and even younger who cannot hire and manage enough young people because of the social and mental stability problems of that generation. It's a reasonably common complaint and getting worse.

But, I've been thinking like that for a long time and I could be smoking my own dope, so considering the facts independently and make your own mind up.

As for the quote from St. Paul. I would certainly HOPE V2 was what it refers to. I wouldn't wish this sh!t on another generation.

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** October 17, 2014, 10:03:36 AM »

Awkward,

Interesting thread indeed. How did you come upon this thinking? Were you just pondering the Bible verses?

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** October 17, 2014, 10:07:28 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Brennus,

Is it the 'one who holds' or the 'one who restrains'? According to the Douay Rheims, it is the 'one who holds' or 'holdeth'.

Could this refer to Peter, who holds the Keys? In other words, to the Pope?

Could it be that the Pope has been removed, that we are now Sedevacante, and have been since Pope Pius XII, who was the last 'one who holds' the Keys.

The 'revolt' then began with Vatican II, although it had been working before that, but couldn't actually take place until the 'one who holds' - the Pope - had been 'taken out of the way'.

Of course, Pope Pius XII could also be the last 'one who restrains', who has also been 'taken out of the way'.

Hmmm....the pope taken away....Cardinal Siri?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #13 on:** October 17, 2014, 11:39:09 AM »

The prophesies in the Bible are there for us to consider, otherwise they wouldn't be there at all. All other prophesies are private revelation and not necessary correct.

Quote

And here's a thought about the La Salette prophecy that 'Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. According to St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Irenaeus and St Hippolytus, the Antichrist will sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Therefore this prophecy of La Salette contradicts the Church Fathers.

I don't necessarily see a contradiction, the Saints you mention might have described the Chair of Peter as a temple in there vision or however they came to this interpretation of what they saw, heard or knew somehow. Or perhaps Rome must lose the Faith, which it has, and next Anti-Christ will come and sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, that part is still in the future.

No matter how we look at it, it is a sure thing that Rome has lost the Faith and became the harlot mentioned in the Bible, fornicating, (interfaith) and we are called to leave the harlot, which is what Roman Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position have done. It does not mean to be sedevacantist we gave up the Papacy, actually C.M.R.I. always quotes from the encyclicals and writings of the past popes constantly, if you don't believe me, check out there website and audios. The bottom line is C.M.R.I. are defending the Papacy by their actions and voice speaking only what the True Popes have declared. Very seldom if ever will our priest speak from the pulpit about the conciliar actions of today, as the SSPX do, about their very own pope. FROM THE PULPIT! It is no wonder they are having a crisis currently. I pray for them!

I pray daily for God to end this entire crisis and we can unite and be one fold under a True Shepherd.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** October 17, 2014, 01:22:54 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Brennus,

Is it the 'one who holds' or the 'one who restrains'? According to the Douay Rheims, it is the 'one who holds' or 'holdeth'.

Could this refer to Peter, who holds the Keys? In other words, to the Pope?

Could it be that the Pope has been removed, that we are now Sedevacante, and have been since Pope Pius XII, who was the last 'one who holds' the Keys.

The 'revolt' then began with Vatican II, although it had been working before that, but couldn't actually take place until the 'one who holds' - the Pope - had been 'taken out of the way'.

Of course, Pope Pius XII could also be the last 'one who restrains', who has also been 'taken out of the way'.

Hmmm....the pope taken away....Cardinal Siri?

This situation has always appeared to me as a "red herring" by the masonic NWO.

It certainly makes a mockery of the martyred popes who suffered for the faith along with the faithful clergy and people.

Imagine St Pius X for a moment, "So you signed the V2 papers, right Cardinal Siri?

As the zucchetto is removed, "Have a nice day, Father"

I'm actually not sure what to think of the Siri Thesis, but when I read "pope taken away" that's where my mind went.