Catholic End-Times Prophecy and Private Revelation?

[AnglicanForMary]

Hello all.

I am preparing a review of Carl Olson’s “Will Catholics Be Left Behind”, and have been reading user reviews on Amazon. One reviewer faulted Olson for not including discussion of Catholic private revelation end-times prophecies in relation to the overall teaching about the End Times, and I am trying to work his criticism into my own review, but don’t know how seriously to treat this particular objection. I’m also wondering how appropriate it would have been to include such a discussion. I know that private revelations (even Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe) though accepted as genuine do not belong to the deposit of the faith in the same way that Scripture and apostolic tradition do, and that acceptance by the Church only means that nothing in the vision, or revelation in question is contrary to faith or morals, yet I still find myself confused about the relation of the teachings contained in such visions and revelations and their use and promulgation in the wider Church.

I know that aside from the Secrets of Fatima, there have been other purported visions that claim to speak of the end times such as St. Malachy’s prophecies, but what is the Church’s position regarding the genuineness or reliability of such end-times prophecies?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Hello all.

I am preparing a review of Carl Olson’s “Will Catholics Be Left Behind”, and have been reading user reviews on Amazon. One reviewer faulted Olson for not including discussion of Catholic private revelation end-times prophecies in relation to the overall teaching about the End Times, and I am trying to work his criticism into my own review, but don’t know how seriously to treat this particular objection. I’m also wondering how appropriate it would have been to include such a discussion. I know that private revelations (even Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe) though accepted as genuine do not belong to the deposit of the faith in the same way that Scripture and apostolic tradition do, and that acceptance by the Church only means that nothing in the vision, or revelation in question is contrary to faith or morals, yet I still find myself confused about the relation of the teachings contained in such visions and revelations and their use and promulgation in the wider Church.

I know that aside from the Secrets of Fatima, there have been other purported visions that claim to speak of the end times such as St. Malachy’s prophecies, but what is the Church’s position regarding the genuineness or reliability of such end-times prophecies?

The Church’s approval of some private revelations is partially a judgment on the orthodoxy of the content of the revelations, but also partially a judgment on the credibility of the visionary. The message of a purported apparition may be beautiful and orthodox, but if the visionary shows signs of mental illness or seeks personal profit from their vision, for example, the Church almost certainly will not approve it.

Anyway, since private revelation is non-binding by definition, I wouldn’t fault Mr. Olson for choosing to leave private revelations out of his book. Nor would I fault him if he did include approved private revelations. It all depends on what kind of book he wanted to write, and to what audience, and his prudential decision whether a certain kind of material was appropriate for what he set out to accomplish. Since I haven’t read the book myself, I can’t form an opinion on whether they would have been a positive contribution.

 

[triumphguy]

Hello all.

I am preparing a review of Carl Olson’s “Will Catholics Be Left Behind”, and have been reading user reviews on Amazon. One reviewer faulted Olson for not including discussion of Catholic private revelation end-times prophecies in relation to the overall teaching about the End Times, and I am trying to work his criticism into my own review, but don’t know how seriously to treat this particular objection. I’m also wondering how appropriate it would have been to include such a discussion. I know that private revelations (even Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe) though accepted as genuine do not belong to the deposit of the faith in the same way that Scripture and apostolic tradition do, and that acceptance by the Church only means that nothing in the vision, or revelation in question is contrary to faith or morals, yet I still find myself confused about the relation of the teachings contained in such visions and revelations and their use and promulgation in the wider Church.

I know that aside from the Secrets of Fatima, there have been other purported visions that claim to speak of the end times such as St. Malachy’s prophecies, but what is the Church’s position regarding the genuineness or reliability of such end-times prophecies?

We’re not going to be left behind Don’t worry about us!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We’re not going to be left behind Don’t worry about us!

Another reason that even legitimate looking apparitions do not get approved (that is not the same as being judged false - they are just left in limbo), especially if they involve predictions of future events, is obviously pragmatic. Why take the risk of judging an apparition before the time of the alledged prophecy?

Garabandal (1961-1965 stjosephpublications.com/books_page.htm) is a very good example of this stance. If it is authentic then the extraordinary prophecies should come to pass within the next 10 years (possibly much sooner) as they are to happen within the lifetimes of certain individuals who haven’t got a lot of time left.

 

[thistle]

Hello all.

I am preparing a review of Carl Olson’s “Will Catholics Be Left Behind”, and have been reading user reviews on Amazon. One reviewer faulted Olson for not including discussion of Catholic private revelation end-times prophecies in relation to the overall teaching about the End Times, and I am trying to work his criticism into my own review, but don’t know how seriously to treat this particular objection. I’m also wondering how appropriate it would have been to include such a discussion. I know that private revelations (even Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe) though accepted as genuine do not belong to the deposit of the faith in the same way that Scripture and apostolic tradition do, and that acceptance by the Church only means that nothing in the vision, or revelation in question is contrary to faith or morals, yet I still find myself confused about the relation of the teachings contained in such visions and revelations and their use and promulgation in the wider Church.

I know that aside from the Secrets of Fatima, there have been other purported visions that claim to speak of the end times such as St. Malachy’s prophecies, but what is the Church’s position regarding the genuineness or reliability of such end-times prophecies?

Nobody (Catholics and non-Catholics) will be left behind. After the final judgement everyone will either be in Heaven or Hell.

 

[Gethsemane]

Given the title of the book,it is clear he’s putting a spin on the popular fundamentalist “Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye. This means that there is the possibility of such fundies reading this book, so it might be wise to leave such private revelations out and stick with Scripture and Church teaching.

 

[tabycat]

Some of the Catholic ‘end-timers’ sound like they are using warmed over ‘fundi end-time’.: stuff. Sometimes the only thing to do is to pray for them and then set back and enjoy your popcorn. :sad_yes::bounce::banghead:

 

[AnglicanForMary]

…] Anyway, since private revelation is non-binding by definition, I wouldn’t fault Mr. Olson for choosing to leave private revelations out of his book. Nor would I fault him if he did include approved private revelations. It all depends on what kind of book he wanted to write, and to what audience, and his prudential decision whether a certain kind of material was appropriate for what he set out to accomplish. …]

Well, to put things in perspective…a) he is writing the book for general layperson Catholics (without the benefit of a theological background) who might have come into contact with the LaHaye (and other author) “;Left Behind” books and b) most of the book is discussion of “Dispensationalism” and “bible prophecy” preaching -it’s terminology, theology, history and personalities…and the three major areas where it differs from Catholic teaching 1) relation of Israel to the Church (grafted in versus total replacement) 2) mode of biblical interpretation and 3) rapture itself, capped by one chapter on authentic Catholic teaching about the Second Coming, General Resurrection, and the Four Last Things… AND c) the objection was raised by a review styled “Man of Truth” whose review was more of a diatribe against non “born again” Christians than an actual review of the text in hand.

I’ll have to go back through the book to see if he references any Catholic end times prophecies as contrast…but I guess from what this discussion has generated that, if Catholic End Times exhortations are brought into a discussion of Rapture and End Time Bible Prophecy…it might be construed as playing the game by their rules so he might have intentionally left them out. Thanks guys

 

[Christine85]

There’s no point in worrying about the end time hype. If you stick to being obedient to the true Holy Catholic Church and be a good practicing Catholic there’s no need to get caught up in end time fuss. You should be worried about the present moment and if your doing Gods will or not.
God bless you always +++

 

[grandfather]

It seems that when a book is reviewed what is relevant is what is on the book, not what is not in the book.

Olsen’s obective in writing the book was to address (debunk) the novel ideas of dispensationalism that drew a lot of attention in the Left Behind series. He addresses the credibility of the proponents.

Either his assessment is accurate, based on historically factual information, or it is not.

The Left Behind frenzy is either based on fantasy, or the dispensationalists rapture will occur.

Examine the material Olsen presents and write a review. The fact of the matter is his treatment of the lunacy stirred up by Le Haye is completely accurate. There are no holes to poke in it, so the only thing left to criticize is what someone thinks he should have included, but left behind.