The Antichrist is No Longer Being Restrained

"Amplified by the words and actions of Pope Francis, the crisis within the Church in recent decades represents, according to many authors from conservative and traditional Catholic circles, an unprecedented phenomenon in history."

From One Peter Five

By Robert Lazu Kmita, PhD

What – or Who – Withholds the Revelation of the Antichrist?

Amplified by the words and actions of Pope Francis, the crisis within the Church in recent decades represents, according to many authors from conservative and traditional Catholic circles, an unprecedented phenomenon in history. Even Pope John Paul II, who unfortunately embodies certain well-known neo-modernist tendencies, was forced to acknowledge in his exhortation Ecclesia in Europa (2003) that we are facing a so-called “silent apostasy” on the part of people who live as if God does not exist (art. 9). It is worth noting that this can only refer to baptized individuals, for only someone who knows Christian doctrine can apostatize, either by rejecting it entirely on a theoretical level or by denying it through a “worldly” way of life.

In times of crisis, as the young Joseph Ratzinger affirmed in the preface to his important monograph Theology of History in Saint Bonaventure (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1971), the faithful not only begin to diligently read the ancient biblical prophecies but also seek the keys to understanding them. Today, we frequently encounter manifestations of this growing interest in deciphering the signs of the times and predicting the end of the world.

For example, in a very brief but intense article published on the Rorate Caeli blog, highly significantly titled “Why is the Traditional Latin Mass So Hated?,” the author, writing under the pseudonym “Father Enda,” directly refers to one of the most famous texts about the Antichrist—from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians by Saint Paul the Apostle. Marked by the attempt of a significant portion of the Church hierarchy to completely ban the traditional Roman Catholic Mass, he asserts with a certain radicalism the following:

The Traditional Latin Mass is the instrument of predilection chosen by God to restrain the reign of Antichrist.

Although rare, this interpretation, which postulates that what restrains the manifestation is the abundance of graces poured out upon the world through the Holy Mass, represents a more subtle understanding of Paul’s text. Beyond a possible preference for the spiritual hermeneutics of sacred texts, reflection on the words of the great Apostle to the Gentiles is absolutely necessary.

Saint Peter’s Warning

Before any discussion of the prophecies of Holy Scripture, a serious warning is absolutely necessary. The reason is simple: prophecies are in fashion. Many of us Christians, as well as some of our non-religious contemporaries, perceive in the changes taking place in today’s world dangers unlike any seen before in history. The world is shaking, and political changes and mass migration are transforming our society into one in which we feel increasingly less secure. Inevitably, discussions about apocalyptic texts—whether Christian or non-Christian—have multiplied considerably.

Regarding the warning about the obscurity of Biblical prophecies, it is an ancient one. As we will see, even the Apostle Paul urged the Christians of his time to exercise great caution in any discussion about the end of history and the Second Coming of Christ. To offer solid protection against apocalypticism and reckless interpretations, the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, gave us a simple and clear teaching:

Ecclesiae ergo est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione S. Scripturae (“It is therefore for the Church to judge about the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture”).

Obviously, since the prophecies of the Judeo-Christian Tradition all stem from the pages of Holy Scripture, the above axiom applies to them as well. Consequently, everything I will present regarding one of the most mysterious prophetic Biblical passages represents a mere opinion, a personal one, just like any discussion that might arise from this article.

This warning also has a specific dimension, referring to the difficulty of understanding the texts of the Apostle Paul, “in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (II Peter 3:16).

The danger of misinterpretation is boldly emphasized. Errors in such matters can have very serious consequences, even endangering one’s own salvation. If we remember that most heresies resulted from or were justified by erroneous interpretations of the Bible, we immediately understand why the virtue of prudence is absolutely necessary. Moreover, beyond the general note regarding the difficulty of understanding Holy Scripture, the Apostle Peter also highlights the intrinsic difficulty of certain texts of the Apostle Paul, which sometimes require a depth of theological knowledge that exceeds the ordinary measure of most Christians. Furthermore, Saint Augustine always emphasized that precise knowledge of the signs of the end of universal history—among which the manifestation of the Antichrist is one of the most prominent—would contradict the words of Christ the Savior, who said, “that day and hour no one knows, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36).

Bearing these warnings in mind, we can now turn our attention to the famous text from II Thessalonians.

The Mysterious Words of Saint Paul

From the context of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, it appears that the members of that community were troubled by the imminence of the end of the world. The Apostle had to calm them down:

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 (II Thessalonians 2:1-2).

The fact that such worries existed during the apostolic era itself shows that the Church’s situation in the world has always made baptized individuals concerned about the possible second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Over the centuries, there have been many Church Fathers and Doctors who leaned toward the belief that the end of the world was imminent. But, as Saint Robert Bellarmine pointed out, such reactions can be regarded more as mere suspicions. Aware of the danger posed by “apocalypticist” attitudes, Saint Paul reacted wisely, offering a framework for the whole discussion. Here are his words:

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, showing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 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 (II Thessalonians 2:3-7).

It is clear that the Apostle had already spoken to the Thessalonians about the mystery of evil and the end of history, and now he is trying to remind them of his teachings. From this, it follows that the second coming of the Savior will be preceded by the manifestation of the one called “the man of sin.” For us, the readers, this is the only obvious thing. The rest of the text remains shrouded in mystery. And that is because we were not among those listeners to whom the Apostle had already revealed the mystery of the supreme incarnation of evil in history. Therefore, we do not know who or what “he who now holdeth” the full manifestation of iniquity might be: τὸ κατέχον (tò katéchon).

The Douay-Rheims translation contains an inaccuracy that must be mentioned. It refers to the use of the noun “revolt” instead of the much clearer term “apostasy.” Of course, revolt can be seen as the fundamental attitude of those who apostatize. That is why I referred to it as an imprecision, not a translation error. However, in the Greek text of Saint Paul’s epistle, the term is unequivocal: ἡ ἀποστασία (hē apostasia), translated by Saint Jerome in the Vulgate as discessio.

Why is this term important? Because it indicates that the event which will prepare the manifestation of the Antichrist is related to a large number of Catholics abandoning the orthodox faith. For, as I already mentioned when citing the exhortation Ecclesia in Europa, only someone who knows this faith can apostatize. Why did the translators from the English College in Douai choose this version instead of saying—like the original text—“apostasy”? Because, often, the most difficult thing to accept is that a large-scale apostasy of Christians might be permitted by God. The most frequent issue I have encountered among Conservative Catholics who refuse to recognize the seriousness of the current situation is related precisely to this difficulty.

The Mystery of Evil

Let us now return to our essential question: the nature of that obstacle, that reality—or person—that prevents the manifestation of the Antichrist. Here, I will emphasize that the foundation of any substantial discussion on this matter is tied to the fact that the noun used in the original Greek text is articulated differently. Thus, in verse 6, we find a neutral form of the word, κατέχον (katechōn), indicated by the article used: “τὸ” (tò). Immediately afterward, in verse 9, the masculine version of the same noun is used, indicated by the article “ὁ” (ho).

Why is this differentiation between the neutral and masculine genders of the same noun important? Because while the former could suggest something like the spiritual barrier referenced in the article mentioned earlier, where the author radically claimed that the Holy Mass is “the instrument of predilection chosen by God to restrain the reign of the Antichrist,” the masculine form seems to point to a person who is preventing the manifestation of the Antichrist. This latter interpretation was followed by the Italian thinker Giorgio Agamben, who suggested that Pope Benedict XVI was the one who impeded the revelation of the Antichrist—an interpretation to which I will return in another article.

At the same time, however, the alternation between the two forms of katechōn—the first, neutral, the second, masculine—may also suggest another interpretation, much closer to the exegesis of the Church Fathers. Thus, it could refer to an institution—the Roman Empire or the Christian Church itself—which also has a human representative of authority to which it is indissolubly linked: the Emperor or the Pope. Therefore, on the one hand, the neutral form might indicate the entity—the Empire or the Church—that restrains the manifestation of the Antichrist, while the masculine form might indicate the person—the Emperor or the Pope—who embodies the authority of the mentioned entity. This interpretation has been the most widespread throughout the history of traditional Christian theology.

For example, Saint John Chrysostom directly addresses the question of the nature of this katechōn, answering it decisively:

What then is it that holds back, that is, that hinders the revealing of the Antichrist? Some indeed say the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman Empire. I agree with the latter position. Why? Because if Paul meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, hold back the Antichrist.

In the same vein, one could also respond to the anonymous author from Rorate Caeli who considers the Holy Mass to be the obstacle preventing the Antichrist. If this were the case, the Apostle would have stated it explicitly, without any problem. Moreover, it would have been accompanied by serious warnings regarding the alteration or replacement of the Traditional Mass. Therefore, the liturgy is not what restrains the manifestation of the Antichrist. Furthermore, Biblical revelation excludes this, as in the Book of Daniel, we are told that the Antichrist himself will prohibit the worship of God—a fact which presupposes that he (the Antichrist) is already manifest.

Although some authors, such as Severian of Gabala, claim that the mysterious katechōn is the Holy Spirit (or possibly divine grace that prevents the full manifestation of evil), the interpretation of Saint John Chrysostom is the dominant one. From Tertullian to Saints Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori, followed by the famous Jesuit commentator Cornelius a Lapide and Bishop Richard Challoner, this interpretation is unanimous: the one who restrains the manifestation of the Antichrist is the Roman Empire. We should not forget that the Empire was Christianized and defended through the providential interventions of legendary historical figures like the Eastern Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, and in the West by Charlemagne and Otto the Great.

Very concretely, Christianization meant the synthesis of Roman law, which saved the Apostle Paul from the unleashed fury of the zealots, and the Gospel. This law of divine right, guaranteed by the glorious Catholic Kings and Emperors, has been systematically excluded from the life of modern states—first through the Protestant Reformation, and later through the wave of revolutions over the last two centuries. The entire legal system inspired by Latin rigor (a rigor maintained even through language) and the Gospel spread by the Roman Catholic Church, along with canon law, has been both theoretically and practically almost completely eliminated.

Law has been replaced by lawlessness—as we can see, for example, in the “legal” support of such extremely grave sins as abortion and euthanasia. Nothing and no one opposes this situation because the Roman Empire—the secular form of the Social Kingdom of Christ the Redeemer—has been made desolate, and its representatives, the Catholic kings and popes, no longer have any real influence over the course of politics and laws in modern states. Has the katechōn been completely removed? Personally, I think so.

Photo Credit: Marcelo Santos on Unsplash