Acceptable Catholic interpertations of the Book of Revelation

[Bill6]

Hello all. I have always been interetsed in understanding Catholic Eschatology and the Book of Revelation. I have heard some Catholics argue that the Book of Revelation primarily refers to events that have already happened. According to this view, only the end of Revelation 20 to the end of the book refer to unfulfiled prophesies. I have heard some who hold this view say that while many events in Revelation have had a primary fulfilment in the past, there’ll be a future fulfilment as well. On the other hand, in a Catholic commentary of Revelation in a DRV Bible, it said that the timeline of Revelation is uncertain, but that most likely, Revelation 4 and onward relate to unfulfiled prophesies. Finally, some have said Revelation is mainly not prophetic-it instead teaches about Catholic liturgical worship and important themes related to it. It seems that all of these interpretations are compatible with Catholic doctrine. I would like to know your opinion. What is your interpetation on Revelation?
Thank you
God bless

 

[Bill6]

I updated my post because something I wrote about the Biblical Commentary was inaccurate.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I prefer the preterist interpretation of Revelation. This means most of it already happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and we are living in the 1000 years (not literal of course!) with Christ.

 

[Gokul]

I have heard Catholics talking about the scriptures in the book of revelation chapter 11 and 12 on the basis of the account, that had happened during Jesus’s birth and the course of timeline after his birth, which ultimate result in the woman who has authority over Israel talking in the book of revelation, is Mary, the Blessed one.

I’m also curious why is it so, when John was called to see the future things, by the Lord , Jesus Christ. Does it violates the past theory?