I started this thread and I didn’t expect that the exchange of ideas would be as hot as this one. The discussions especially on Daniel 7 was presented in a scholarly manner by both groups…I never thought that Filipino apologists would be that good in Biblical exegesis. But nevertheless, I’ve noticed that the debate on Daniel has gone too far – many have already fallen into fallacies and violation of a proper debate, both sides have committed “ad hominim”. One thing that I’ve learned in my lengthy years of being an apologist/catechist/missionary is that Apologetics should be exercised through charity. When the discussion becomes personal and has already fled from the original topic/discussion, I think it’s time for both parties to leave and let things cool for sometime. Apologetics is meant to bring out the Truth and understanding and unity – not divisiveness and hate.
With regards to Daniel 7, as to whether the “little horn” is Titus or Antiochus Epiphanes, for me I’ll follow what most Catholic Biblical scholars understand with regards to that specific verse…that the “little horn” is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. As far as Apocalyptic book of Daniel is concerned, the symbolic Beasts in Daniel 7 only refers to Babylonian empire, to the Median Empire, to the Persian Empire, and to Alexander’s empire which “was different from all the others” – Rome is not included. According to the New American Bible, it says that, “The 10 horns represents the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, the only part of the Hellenistic empire that concerned the author. The LITTLE HORN is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.)…” – he was the one who usurp power and was known to be fierce and brutal – he was “Differerent from those before him”. It is a fact that the Maccabaeus clan even revolted against the reign of Antiochus.
Rome, at the time of writing of the Book of Daniel (which is believed to be in the 6th century B.C.) was not yet involved in Palestine, their involvement came later, in the year 63 B.C.
Let me also remind everyone that the dominant school of thought in the Roman Catholic Church regarding Apocalyptic writings such as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation is amillennialism. We do not subscribe to what “Dooms-day” Christians like the Adventists do with these Apocalyptic writings – for us Catholics the symbolic language used in these apocalyptic writings speak of the events and personalities during the author’s time (with exception of course with those prophecies that touches on the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus 2000 years ago) – they do not predict the future events. So the Book of Daniel, especially the “little horn”, does not speak of Rome or its leaders, particularly Titus.
And it is indeed true that the Church hierarchy have already given the Catholic Biblical scholars with some degree of freedom regarding the exegesis of the Scripture so long as they do not clash with the official teachings of the Church. It is also true that the Church have not yet made any interpretation of any verse in the Scripture and declared it as dogmatic, the exegesis of the Scripture is left into the hands of Biblical scholars of the Church in order to illuminate and Illustrate the Doctrines of the Church…after all, ours is not the Church of Books, it is the Church of the Word – our Doctrines do not depend on the Scriptures since even without the Scripture, the Gospel of Jesus Christ could have still been preach through the Sacred Tradition. Therefore the Scripture is just there as an aid to our understanding of the Faith which was passed to us from the Apostles. Nevertheless, our understanding of the Scripture should never go against the norms of the Catholic Church.
Actually my purpose of writing again on this thread is to call your attention to Fr. Archie Guiriba’s Shalom International Catholic Charismatic Foundation. I have been monitoring this group and I had mix perception about it. Last March 20, 2009, everything gone bad…from being an iconoclast, now Fr. Archie is sowing confusion among Catholics when he guested at 700 Club Asia. The topic at that time was about icons and images and idolatry. And to my surprise he even agreed (although not stated but implied) to Peter Kairuz that the official teaching of the Catholic Church on icons and sacred images is an act of idolatry. There were some points where I agree with Fr. Archie, like when he said that some Catholics have already gone too far in the veneration of sacred images becoming more like an act of idolatry…but to question the Teaching of the Catholic Church??? COME ON!!! Another dissident and unorthodox priest? COME ON!!! The Church needs a UNITED VOICE among it’s pastors in order to battle the dictatorship of Relativism…and here we see a priest questioning a Church teaching??? O God…what an abomination!
I have already written to the CBCP to check out on this and I am inviting others to do the same.
There is nothing wrong with us getting along with the Evangelicals as part of the Church’ ecumenical effort…but to be there on a TV show that is proselytizing the Catholic Church and to even corroborate with their attack against us is a NO NO for a Catholic Priest – he is suppose to protect our Catholic Faith and even promote our Catholic Identity. He is a Franciscan and as far as I know, his order’s founder, St. Francis of Assisi, started the veneration of the crucifix and on the Nativity scene or Belen…so he is telling us that his founder was also an idolater?
I think the Filipino Bishops must be vigilant in their guard against an imminent heresy here in the Philippines that is threatening to divide the local Church.
You can watch that interview at
cbnasia.org/700club_stories/index.php?id=70
