1582 Rheims New Testament Predicts the Present Crisis

[Baylee]

I think the revolt "first" just means that the revolt happens before the anti-Christ.  The timeline could still be loss of papacy > revolt > Anti-Christ.  However, I think we agree that a loss of papacy will occur regardless. I know where we differ is when that loss of papacy occurs.

[awkward customer]

According to St Paul, once the 'one who holds' (the Katechon) is 'taken out of the way', the 'revolt' follows.

St. Paul's timeline is fuzzy.  I'd argue this timeline is a better match.

Revolt -> Loss of the Papacy -> Rise of antichrist.

Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first,

"First" is not decisive, but it's there.

For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.  8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth;

"He" can only be the Pope, because the Pope is the only "person" who dates back to Apostolic times.  Paul says that he is already holding the anti-Christ back, so it is the same "person".

Anyhow once the Pope is gone, then comes the anti-Christ.  Unfortunately when Paul gets into details, the revolt is no longer mentioned.  I argue that the context favors the revolt comes first, but again, the removal of the Pope first is not disproven.

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.

It is clear that Paul is saying the Pope is holding back "he" who is then revealed.  But is the "revolt" implied?  You can't tell.  The "first" is what tips it to the revolt first, but I won't claim this is the correct timeline, just the one I favor.

Interesting, but of course the Vatican II Revolt didn't come out of nowhere.  I usually refer to the Council as "the Revolt" for the sake of simplicity. But I would also say that Vatican II is the end result of the Revolt which began with the Protestant Reformation then continued through the Enlightenment, the Age of Revolution and Modernism.   This progression then culminated in the Second Vatican Council, the point at which the Revolt became publicly manifested within the Church.

Could it be  that 'the one who holds' had to be 'taken out of the way' in order for the final triumph of the Revolt to happen - Vatican II - and that the Revolt had been brewing for centuries, since at least the Protestant Revolt and maybe even the schism with the Eastern Orthodox?

[james03]

The chronological order can not be 100% determined, unfortunately.  The "Reformation" was certainly a revolt, and in fact Catholics believed the anti-Christ was coming.  However that would leave those Catholics in the same state as the Thessolonians.  So I don't accept it was "the" Revolt.

Vat. II is a perfect fit.  Also, Vat. II is a great fit for the Apocalypse scene of the scroll that is sweet in the mouth, but sours the stomach, i.e. poison. The scripture immediately following this describes a Church greatly reduced and trampled by the Gentiles.

[Baylee]

The chronological order can not be 100% determined, unfortunately.  The "Reformation" was certainly a revolt, and in fact Catholics believed the anti-Christ was coming.  However that would leave those Catholics in the same state as the Thessolonians.  So I don't accept it was "the" Revolt.

Vat. II is a perfect fit.  Also, Vat. II is a great fit for the Apocalypse scene of the scroll that is sweet in the mouth, but sours the stomach, i.e. poison. The scripture immediately following this describes a Church greatly reduced and trampled by the Gentiles.

Also notice the Scripture verses just after the revolt verses in 2Thessalonians2 re: God sending the operation of error to believe the lie, and standing firm and holding to traditions.

[james03]

God sending the operation of error to believe the lie,

I've noticed.  Lying has just exploded all over society.  Clapping Seal Syndrome / Mass Formation Psychosis is nothing more than believing the lie.

The marks of our times: Hatred, Lying, Ugliness.

[awkward customer]

The chronological order can not be 100% determined, unfortunately. The "Reformation" was certainly a revolt, and in fact Catholics believed the anti-Christ was coming.  However that would leave those Catholics in the same state as the Thessolonians.  So I don't accept it was "the" Revolt.

Vat. II is a perfect fit.  Also, Vat. II is a great fit for the Apocalypse scene of the scroll that is sweet in the mouth, but sours the stomach, i.e. poison. The scripture immediately following this describes a Church greatly reduced and trampled by the Gentiles.

Vatican II it is then.  And the Revolt either happens before the 'one who holds' is 'taken out of the way', or after. 

But Vatican II is the Revolt, either way.  It just depends on who you think the last Pope was.

Which means that we are living in the time of the rise of the Antichrist, as predicted? 

[james03]

Well, we'd have to see a Council that produces documents that are sweet in the mouth, but sour the stomach because they are poison.  And a country we can identify as "The Red Dragon".  And we'll need war breaking out along the Tigris and Euphrates, modern day Syria and Iraq.  And Jerusalem has to be returned to the jews.

Until then, we're good.

[james03]

And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.  23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.  24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music.  25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

Forgot one, we'll need to see a heretic Pope, and the TLM crushed in the official Church.

[LausTibiChriste]

And the Rheims New Testament predicted that for a short time during the reign of the Antichrist, "the external state of the Roman Church and public intercourse of the faithful with the same may cease ....."

Oh dear ......

That sounds just the the prophecy in the Book of Daniel that "the Eternal Sacrifice will be ended." We know the Eternal Sacrifice is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And the Rheims New Testament predicted that for a short time during the reign of the Antichrist, "the external state of the Roman Church and public intercourse of the faithful with the same may cease ....."

Oh dear ......

That sounds just the the prophecy in the Book of Daniel that "the Eternal Sacrifice will be ended." We know the Eternal Sacrifice is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

If the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, would it mean that the Church has already stopped offering the Eternal Sacrifice?

No, because a "remnant" of faithful Catholics still exist, and faithful priests sill exist to say the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

But surely the Church no longer publicly offers the Eternal Sacrifice.

And the "remnant" aren't the Visible Church.

What about the Eastern Churches? They are untouched from V2 (generally speaking), never altered their sacraments and are in Full Communion with Rome (Whatever that means these days)

[awkward customer]

What about the Eastern Churches? They are untouched from V2 (generally speaking), never altered their sacraments and are in Full Communion with Rome (Whatever that means these days)

This is an excellent question.

I don't know, is my answer.  Maybe yours is the question which defeats the argument.  Or maybe the Eastern Churches are part of the remnant on account of their numbers being so small - 18m out of 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide belong to the Eastern Churches according to Wikipedia.

[LausTibiChriste]

What about the Eastern Churches? They are untouched from V2 (generally speaking), never altered their sacraments and are in Full Communion with Rome (Whatever that means these days)

This is an excellent question.

I don't know, is my answer.  Maybe yours is the question which defeats the argument.  Or maybe the Eastern Churches are part of the remnant on account of their numbers being so small - 18m out of 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide belong to the Eastern Churches according to Wikipedia.

Indeed.

It's hard to put my thoughts down on paper, as it were, but I truly believe that the state of the Eastern Churches and their history during this entire debacle proves Fatima and "Salvation will come from the East". God is protecting them (and yet keeping them obscure) on purpose (not that He doesn't do anything on purpose lol).

In my opinion, they are the safest harbour you can find these days.