Protestantism is satanism.

[Melkite]

..... how on earth do you come to the conclusion that the restrainer is the Pope instead of the Holy Spirit?  Seems completely eisegetical to me.

From 2Thess2 and from the fact that Cardinal Manning identified the Papacy as what 'witholdeth' until 'the Man of Sin may be revealed in his time', and the Pope as "the one who holds' who has to be 'taken out of the way' so that the 'revolt' can take place, the revolt being Vatican II.

And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him:  2 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.  3 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,  4 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.  5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.  7 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; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming,[ him,  9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,  10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

Basically, Pope Pius XII was the last Pope.  When he died in 1958, a succession of apostate 'popes' was put in place to push the Vatican II 'revolt', Bergoglio being the 6th of these fake 'popes'.  This suggests that the 'Man of Sin' is waiting in the wings for his moment.

Yes, I know..... but it's the only position I can come up with that explains the fact that Vatican II isn't Catholic and that the Conciliar 'popes', all six of them, are or have been heretics.  We are living in the time of the rise of the Antichrist and are eye witnesses to the revolt warned about by St Paul which will usher in his coming.

There is nothing in that text that indicates it is speaking of the pope as the restrainer, or the revolt as Vatican II.  I guess it could be, but you have to read that onto the text.  You don't get it from the text itself.  And so what if some cardinal said that's what it meant?  Cardinals can err.

If you need to interpret it this way because it's the only way to make sense of the position that the see is vacant, then doesn't it make more sense that you err by forcing that interpretation?

[awkward customer]

My problem with that is where is the Antichrist and why did Christ get 3 to 3.5 years while the Antichrist gets the best part of 100 years with the Roman Catholic Church headless and the faith not taught at all?

Christ did not get a 66 lull in evil before He showed up.

Modern novus ordo "catholics" are not really Catholics in the greater part. Most of them could not even say the creed in there local language and would have no idea what the 7 cardinal sins, or cardinal virtues are.

In addition, and this is a HUGE red flag as far as I am concerned, if SVism is true -God has allowed a subterfuge of the most successful camp of Traditional Catholics by FAR, the SSPX to recognise those false Popes. whilst the SVs are virtually non-existent in many countries, making the sacraments unavailable.  If SVism represented true Catholicism then I could not access the sacraments and I live 30 miles outside of one of the largest cities in the world.

I can see God making it hard for Catholics.  I cannot see him making it near impossible to access the sacraments.  All He would have to do would be convert a single billionaire or a few multi-millionaires, get them to fund the growth Mel Gibson style and put a high energy competent head of SVs and they could have outgrown the SSPX.  Show the fruits and the thing would grow as people were attracted to it.

SVism is far too small to be credibly considered 'the Church' in a world of 2 billion Catholics.

The Antichrist is waiting for the right time.  Can't be long now.

And surely all Trads are the Church in the wilderness plus numbers of NOers too, who believe they are holding the Catholic Faith even if they don't fully realise what's going on.  Opinions on the status of the Conciliar 'popes' are just that - opinions - and no declaration has been made by the Church either way. 

Surely God will give those who hold to the Faith some leeway when it comes to having opinions.  After all, He's prepared to 'shorten the days' in case even the elect are deceived.

Anyway, half the Sedes I've met attend SSPX Masses.  And just because the SSPX is wrong on this issue doesn't mean that Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't a Catholic hero and most likely a Saint.  These divisions among Trads won't help when the AC finally does make his appearance.

[Melkite]

Is there a consensus opinion among the fathers or saints about the identity of the Katechon?

That's a good question.  I don't know the answer to it.  It would be very interesting to see what the fathers understood it to mean.  Considering many of them didn't have an understanding of the papacy as taught by Vatican 1 onwards, it seems very unlikely that they would have interpreted it to be the pope.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Considering many of them didn't have an understanding of the papacy as taught by Vatican 1 onwards

This is a common EO talking point, but I've never seen hard evidence that any fathers or saints held a belief that would be contrary to the doctrines defined at Vatican 1...

[awkward customer]

There is nothing in that text that indicates it is speaking of the pope as the restrainer, or the revolt as Vatican II.  I guess it could be, but you have to read that onto the text.  You don't get it from the text itself.  And so what if some cardinal said that's what it meant?  Cardinals can err.

If you need to interpret it this way because it's the only way to make sense of the position that the see is vacant, then doesn't it make more sense that you err by forcing that interpretation?

Who do you think the restrainer is?  Who or what else could it be?

And yes, this interpretation does make sense of a vacant See for over 60 years.  It's the only one that does.  But I don't believe I'm forcing anything.  The Seat of Peter has been vacant for over 60 years and the explanation fits.

Every time we recite the Creed we acknowledge that Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
Why not now?

At least my explanation doesn't involve a defecting Church or heretical Popes.

[Melkite]

Considering many of them didn't have an understanding of the papacy as taught by Vatican 1 onwards

This is a common EO talking point, but I've never seen hard evidence that any fathers or saints held a belief that would be contrary to the doctrines defined at Vatican 1...

I don't think they have either.  There seems to be an absence of awareness of the concept rather than an understanding and rejection of it.  But there does seem to be a longstanding understanding of some kind of Roman primacy, even if it was not understood in the same way as it's understood today.

[Melkite]

Who do you think the restrainer is?  Who or what else could it be?

I just checked those verses out on the Catena app.  From the fathers quoted, the primary interpretation was that the restrainer was the Roman Empire.  Second most common was the Holy Spirit.  St. Augustine said plainly he has no idea who it's referring to.  None of them said the bishop of Rome (but to be fair, it's not exactly a comprehensive bank of quotes, so maybe some out there did think it meant the pope).

And yes, this interpretation does make sense of a vacant See for over 60 years.  It's the only one that does.  But I don't believe I'm forcing anything.  The Seat of Peter has been vacant for over 60 years and the explanation fits.

It is a way to make sense of it, but there's nothing in the text that indicates that that is how it is to be interpreted.  You are taking a current, dubious understanding of an issue and looking at a text, trying to find evidence of your preconceived conclusion therein.  That's not a fair or realistic treatment of Scripture.

[awkward customer]

Who do you think the restrainer is?  Who or what else could it be?

I just checked those verses out on the Catena app.  From the fathers quoted, the primary interpretation was that the restrainer was the Roman Empire.  Second most common was the Holy Spirit.  St. Augustine said plainly he has no idea who it's referring to.  None of them said the bishop of Rome (but to be fair, it's not exactly a comprehensive bank of quotes, so maybe some out there did think it meant the pope).

And yes, this interpretation does make sense of a vacant See for over 60 years.  It's the only one that does.  But I don't believe I'm forcing anything.  The Seat of Peter has been vacant for over 60 years and the explanation fits.

It is a way to make sense of it, but there's nothing in the text that indicates that that is how it is to be interpreted.  You are taking a current, dubious understanding of an issue and looking at a text, trying to find evidence of your preconceived conclusion therein.  That's not a fair or realistic treatment of Scripture.

There's nothing in the text to suggest that the restrainer was the Roman empire either, or the Holy Spirit for that matter.  It's all interpretation, isn't it.

And I can't imagine why the Roman empire would restrain the Antichrist? 

 

[Aethel]

Who do you think the restrainer is?  Who or what else could it be?

I just checked those verses out on the Catena app.  From the fathers quoted, the primary interpretation was that the restrainer was the Roman Empire.  Second most common was the Holy Spirit.  St. Augustine said plainly he has no idea who it's referring to.  None of them said the bishop of Rome (but to be fair, it's not exactly a comprehensive bank of quotes, so maybe some out there did think it meant the pope).

And yes, this interpretation does make sense of a vacant See for over 60 years.  It's the only one that does.  But I don't believe I'm forcing anything.  The Seat of Peter has been vacant for over 60 years and the explanation fits.

It is a way to make sense of it, but there's nothing in the text that indicates that that is how it is to be interpreted.  You are taking a current, dubious understanding of an issue and looking at a text, trying to find evidence of your preconceived conclusion therein.  That's not a fair or realistic treatment of Scripture.

There's nothing in the text to suggest that the restrainer was the Roman empire either, or the Holy Spirit for that matter.  It's all interpretation, isn't it.

And I can't imagine why the Roman empire would restrain the Antichrist? 

 

But here's what I don't get:

Doesn't it speak to a very Protestant mindset and ethos to look at snippets of Bible verses and read into single verses entire theological systems without proper historical context or other verses? Prosperity gospel believers will read into the Book of Psalms blessings for abundance, Millenialists will read the 1000 years of Christ verse in isolation, rapture believers will read that one verse about the works being destroyed by fire in isolation.

Isn't the Catholic approach to read the Bible as a whole and with proper interpretation by the Church Fathers? Isn't that what Aquinas did?

Why is it that on the topic of verses which supposedly have a Papal interpretation Catholics drop this methodology in favor of an emotionalistic Protestant one?

To me it reeks of pride to say that dozens of Church Fathers who are unanimous with a particular interpretation of a verse are all wrong, and you're novel interpretation is correct

[awkward customer]

But here's what I don't get:

Doesn't it speak to a very Protestant mindset and ethos to look at snippets of Bible verses and read into single verses entire theological systems without proper historical context or other verses? Prosperity gospel believers will read into the Book of Psalms blessings for abundance, Millenialists will read the 1000 years of Christ verse in isolation, rapture believers will read that one verse about the works being destroyed by fire in isolation.

Isn't the Catholic approach to read the Bible as a whole and with proper interpretation by the Church Fathers? Isn't that what Aquinas did?

Why is it that on the topic of verses which supposedly have a Papal interpretation Catholics drop this methodology in favor of an emotionalistic Protestant one?

To me it reeks of pride to say that dozens of Church Fathers who are unanimous with a particular interpretation of a verse are all wrong, and you're novel interpretation is correct

How about explaining why you think the interpretation is wrong, besides pointing out its "emotionalistic Protestant" methodology.  Be specific, for example, do you think it's impossible that Vatican II is the Revolt of 2Thess2?  Or could it be something else, say, the Reformation?  Or what? 

As for the Church Fathers interpretation of the Roman empire as the restrainer that holds back the Man of Sin, bearing in mind that they lived at the time of the Roman empire....  Would this mean that the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, was let loose when the Roman Empire fell?

[Aethel]

But here's what I don't get:

Doesn't it speak to a very Protestant mindset and ethos to look at snippets of Bible verses and read into single verses entire theological systems without proper historical context or other verses? Prosperity gospel believers will read into the Book of Psalms blessings for abundance, Millenialists will read the 1000 years of Christ verse in isolation, rapture believers will read that one verse about the works being destroyed by fire in isolation.

Isn't the Catholic approach to read the Bible as a whole and with proper interpretation by the Church Fathers? Isn't that what Aquinas did?

Why is it that on the topic of verses which supposedly have a Papal interpretation Catholics drop this methodology in favor of an emotionalistic Protestant one?

To me it reeks of pride to say that dozens of Church Fathers who are unanimous with a particular interpretation of a verse are all wrong, and you're novel interpretation is correct

How about explaining why you think the interpretation is wrong, besides pointing out its "emotionalistic Protestant" methodology.  Be specific, for example, do you think it's impossible that Vatican II is the Revolt of 2Thess2?  Or could it be something else, say, the Reformation?  Or what? 

As for the Church Fathers interpretation of the Roman empire as the restrainer that holds back the Man of Sin, bearing in mind that they lived at the time of the Roman empire....  Would this mean that the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, was let loose when the Roman Empire fell?

1. The Papacy was a development over time. The Pope wasn't even at Rome until after Saint Peter's martyrdom. Considering that the attitude of the other Apostles was more ambiguous as to Peter's role (for instance, Paul withstands Peter to his face for promoting circumcision, Saint James presiding over the Council of Jerusalem), and it took 1700 years for the Church to determine the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (even up to that point people were debating about the Pope's ultimate role, even though canon law by that time determined that nobody judges the First See). We have Ecumenical Councils which condemned Popes for heresy - which, for the Catholic, was made in error.

To assume that the Bible verse could be about something so far in the distant future in this one isolated incident (the Book of Daniel, traditionally understood, doesn't go beyond the Collapse of Rome and the splitting of the Kingdoms of Europe)


2. Because it's completely contrary to the ethos of the Church for layman to take individual verses and apply it to our own times and circumstances devoid of context, devoid of the authority of the Church Fathers and the Magisterium, Protestant Rapture style.

Rather than viewing the Bible as an authoritative text created in a proper time and place, you are literally treating the Bible as a divination tool.

3. Paul talks about Peter elsewhere in the New Testament and very clearly doesn't refer to him with this tone of voice or subordination. Even if Peter was the Coryphaeus according to Chrysostom and had primacy over the Apostles, it's quite a leap that Paul would in one instance refer to him casually as "Cephas", belittle other Church Members for bickering over which Apostle they followed, and even withstand Peter to his face,

and in another instance treat him like he's the only thing preventing the Antichrist from coming.

[Aethel]

But here's what I don't get:

Doesn't it speak to a very Protestant mindset and ethos to look at snippets of Bible verses and read into single verses entire theological systems without proper historical context or other verses? Prosperity gospel believers will read into the Book of Psalms blessings for abundance, Millenialists will read the 1000 years of Christ verse in isolation, rapture believers will read that one verse about the works being destroyed by fire in isolation.

Isn't the Catholic approach to read the Bible as a whole and with proper interpretation by the Church Fathers? Isn't that what Aquinas did?

Why is it that on the topic of verses which supposedly have a Papal interpretation Catholics drop this methodology in favor of an emotionalistic Protestant one?

To me it reeks of pride to say that dozens of Church Fathers who are unanimous with a particular interpretation of a verse are all wrong, and you're novel interpretation is correct

How about explaining why you think the interpretation is wrong, besides pointing out its "emotionalistic Protestant" methodology.  Be specific, for example, do you think it's impossible that Vatican II is the Revolt of 2Thess2?  Or could it be something else, say, the Reformation?  Or what? 

As for the Church Fathers interpretation of the Roman empire as the restrainer that holds back the Man of Sin, bearing in mind that they lived at the time of the Roman empire....  Would this mean that the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, was let loose when the Roman Empire fell?

I personally think that Paul is here referring to the Holy Spirit. Because the "Spirit of Iniquity" is the lacking of the Holy Spirit. "He that restraineth" is referring to the restraining of the inevitable end times through God providing grace to the world. When grace is removed, the end times start.

There's a clear idea in the New Testament that there's going to be severe moral and social decay before the end comes. This pops up in Paul, Christ's Gospel, etc.

I also think this is what's signaled by Christ being chased into the desert by the Dragon in Revelation 12 - it's a repeat of the Gospel events, bur refers to the Grace of God being chased away into the desert, because immediately after Christ is chased away, the Beast arises from the Sea.

 
It's the removal of Grace by which the social conditions necessary for the Antichrist - complete moral and social decay - come to fruition.

I think the Man of Sin is the Antichrist.

Contrary to what the Modernists, Liberals and Higher Critics will tell you, the Early Church had a very clear notion of the Antichrist which involved the Building of a Third Temple and the Jews accepting him as the Messiah.

In fact when Julian the Apostate tried to undo Constantine, he tried to build the Third Temple to disprove Christianity.

[awkward customer]

But here's what I don't get:

Doesn't it speak to a very Protestant mindset and ethos to look at snippets of Bible verses and read into single verses entire theological systems without proper historical context or other verses? Prosperity gospel believers will read into the Book of Psalms blessings for abundance, Millenialists will read the 1000 years of Christ verse in isolation, rapture believers will read that one verse about the works being destroyed by fire in isolation.

Isn't the Catholic approach to read the Bible as a whole and with proper interpretation by the Church Fathers? Isn't that what Aquinas did?

Why is it that on the topic of verses which supposedly have a Papal interpretation Catholics drop this methodology in favor of an emotionalistic Protestant one?

To me it reeks of pride to say that dozens of Church Fathers who are unanimous with a particular interpretation of a verse are all wrong, and you're novel interpretation is correct

How about explaining why you think the interpretation is wrong, besides pointing out its "emotionalistic Protestant" methodology.  Be specific, for example, do you think it's impossible that Vatican II is the Revolt of 2Thess2?  Or could it be something else, say, the Reformation?  Or what? 

As for the Church Fathers interpretation of the Roman empire as the restrainer that holds back the Man of Sin, bearing in mind that they lived at the time of the Roman empire....  Would this mean that the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, was let loose when the Roman Empire fell?

1. The Papacy was a development over time. The Pope wasn't even at Rome until after Saint Peter's martyrdom. Considering that the attitude of the other Apostles was more ambiguous as to Peter's role (for instance, Paul withstands Peter to his face for promoting circumcision, Saint James presiding over the Council of Jerusalem), and it took 1700 years for the Church to determine the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (even up to that point people were debating about the Pope's ultimate role, even though canon law by that time determined that nobody judges the First See). We have Ecumenical Councils which condemned Popes for heresy - which, for the Catholic, was made in error.

To assume that the Bible verse could be about something so far in the distant future in this one isolated incident (the Book of Daniel, traditionally understood, doesn't go beyond the Collapse of Rome and the splitting of the Kingdoms of Europe)


2. Because it's completely contrary to the ethos of the Church for layman to take individual verses and apply it to our own times and circumstances devoid of context, devoid of the authority of the Church Fathers and the Magisterium, Protestant Rapture style.

Rather than viewing the Bible as an authoritative text created in a proper time and place, you are literally treating the Bible as a divination tool.

3. Paul talks about Peter elsewhere in the New Testament and very clearly doesn't refer to him with this tone of voice or subordination. Even if Peter was the Coryphaeus according to Chrysostom and had primacy over the Apostles, it's quite a leap that Paul would in one instance refer to him casually as "Cephas", belittle other Church Members for bickering over which Apostle they followed, and even withstand Peter to his face,

and in another instance treat him like he's the only thing preventing the Antichrist from coming.

What you're saying is that the Pope wasn't important enough at the time to be the one who St Paul refers to as holding back the Antichrist.  And that the Pope hasn't been a big deal for most of Church history, at least not until the 18th century, and even then Catholics got it wrong about the Pope and still do, according to you.

You're an agnostic.  Pity I didn't notice before.

[LausTibiChriste]

I never noticed my Grandma making the devil horned-hand sign.   

Yet she's still probably in Hell, all things being equal