Catholic Interpretation of Bible Prophecy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter roseprince
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

roseprince

Guest
I am a college freshman who is converting to Catholicism and hopefully will be confirmed very soon.
I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, and that church is particularly interested in reading and interpreting Bible prophecies. A big part of that is using passages from Daniel and Revelation to supposedly “prove” that the Catholic Church is the antichrist or “Little Horn” referred to in those verses. They have long complicated explanations for why the Bible verses support that. I was wondering how Catholics interpret these passages and Bible prophecies. I certainly don’t believe the former interpretations but I’m curious as to how the church understands them.
 
Hmm, good question. I have an Ignatius Study Bible, but it’s at home (I have been staying at my brother’s to watch his kids while he is at work), so I can’t check it right now. I’m not sure if this explains it or not, but it is a good place to check.HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY
 
roseprince said:
I am a college freshman who is converting to Catholicism and hopefully will be confirmed very soon.
I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, and that church is particularly interested in reading and interpreting Bible prophecies. A big part of that is using passages from Daniel and Revelation to supposedly “prove” that the Catholic Church is the antichrist or “Little Horn” referred to in those verses. They have long complicated explanations for why the Bible verses support that. I was wondering how Catholics interpret these passages and Bible prophecies. I certainly don’t believe the former interpretations but I’m curious as to how the church understands them.
Click to expand...
There’s zero in Catholicism which deems that the Catholic Church is the AntiChrist…

PLUS - The Catholic Church strictly adheres to Sacred Scriptural Teachings that God’s Holy Spirit is the One and Only INTERPRETER of SCRIPTURES.
 
roseprince said:
I was wondering how Catholics interpret these passages and Bible prophecie
Click to expand...
You’ll find that the Church does not interpret these passages in authoritative ways. There are many schools of thought, but none of them are dogmatic.

What we do do is look at them within the histoircal context, which provides a great deal of insight. Take, for instance, a common Protestant claim that The Church is the “city on seven hills” written about in revelation. From the historical context we can tell St. John was most likely writing about Rome when it was under Roman control. At the time of St. John’s writing the Church was still primarily out of the Middle-East, and only a handful of faithful had gone to Rome, pretty much all of whom had been martyred.

As for the “Little Horn” or the beasts of Revelation, there is scant evidence to connect them to the Church. I don’t want to sound too harsh here, but Seventh-Day Adventism has historically been extremely anti-Catholic, it’s no surprise that they would twist prophecy to try to denounce the Church.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I don’t want to sound too harsh here, but Seventh-Day Adventism has historically been extremely anti-Catholic, it’s no surprise that they would twist prophecy to try to denounce the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes…

Their very “name” and subsequent ‘beliefs’
  • suggests evidences - that they weren’t formed by Christians.
Extreme AntiCatholic IS AntiChristian…
 
I’d also highly recommend the Navarre study Bible, Book of Revelation. You can get it very cheap, used paperback, on Amazon.
 
The book of Daniel and Revelation are both examples of apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic literature, although written in a futuristic sense, are actually not prophesying about a future event. Rather, they use these symbols and visions to give hope. The audience is also typically a group a persecuted individuals or communities, as is the case of both Daniel and Revelation. Many fundamentalist groups mistakenly cite Revelation to try and p(name removed by moderator)oint signs of the end times. However, what they miss is that the events symbolically described have already passed. Despite this fact, these texts are still useful to us because they convey that important message of hope.
 
With respect, I’d have to highly recommend using another study Bible. The Navarre study Bible is infamous for incorrectly using modern biblical scholarship to interpret Scripture. When I was obtaining my theology degree, I was not allowed to use the Navarre commentaries due to it being poor biblical scholarship. I’d actually suggest the New Jerome Biblical Commentaries or the Anchor Bible Series. Both of those are fine models of scholarship.
 
Your professors probably discredited it because it is faithful to Church doctrine and doesn’t include modern liberal biblical scholarship.
I don’t have the New Jerome Commentary, but I had the Jerome Commentary for years – rarely using it because of it’s liberal dissenting slant that involved Church teaching in some instances. I ended up throwing it away when we moved & bookshelf space was cut in half.

Fr. Raymond Brown was probably the best known of the Jerome Biblical editors. This article gives some background on him. A quote from the article:
Fr. Brown drew sharp criticism from the late Lawrence Cardinal Shehan and others for his pioneering role “in a new Catholic theology founded on modern exegesis” that cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
(Some of Brown’s questionable teachings listed in the article include Jesus’ physical Resurrection; the Transfiguration; institution of priesthood, Jesus’ virginal conception, …
The article also gives the name of some of Fr. Brown’s peers who were “highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church’s age-old theology of inspiration and inerrancy.”
 
Last edited:
I do not think that your comment was particularly charitable to people that you have never met.

Personally, I do not care about the slant that scholars have. I care about the truth. Sometimes that might be “right wing” and other times that might be “left wing.” The Navarre Biblical Commentaries are known for using inadequate scholarship, liberal, conservative, or whatever. I have my own complaints with Fr. Raymond Brown. But I cannot deny that he was incredibly educated on the topics that he wrote about.
 
Did you read the article?

Also, could you give some sources (from noted faithful Catholic scholars) for your criticism of the Navarre, your statement that it’s “infamous for incorrectly using modern biblical scholarship to interpret Scripture” and that it’s" known for using inadequate scholarship"?

I share your love for truth. On that we can agree. 🙂
 
Last edited:
As I said, I have my own complaints with Fr. Raymond Brown. I’ve been called a traditionalist myself and I try to frequent the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I get that sentiment regarding his scholarship. It isn’t new. But, from an objective standpoint, Fr. Raymond Brown had an immense impact on modern biblical scholarship. I think that many times, people think the Bible is clear cut. But, it’s often messy. Scholars make claims that make us uneasy. Scholars find information that stands in a different light than what was traditionally believed. That’s not inherently bad. It helps us grow. Fr. Brown was one of those scholars that went right into the messiness. I think that he got some things right and other things wrong. Regardless, I appreciate what he has done for biblical scholarship as a field.

One way to check to see what is good scholarship is to actually look at the scholarship itself and refer to bibliographies. I think that my comment was unfairly vague. I’ll add to it. There are four senses of scripture. The Navarre commentary doesn’t focus on the historical sense of scripture and the information regarding this sense is poor. Scholars who are primarily interested in what the text literally says and who look at the historical surroundings regarding the text won’t use the Navarre commentaries. It just glosses over it. I don’t have any articles from popular Catholic sources (like Catholic Culture) to validate my claims, mostly because I don’t usually get my scholarship from pop sources. It might be a cop out, but it’s unfortunately the best that I can do given my current circumstances. But if you are genuinely interested or have doubts about my comments, I invite you to look into it yourself. I just know with what I have worked with (and continually work with) and what the scholars whom I look up to say.

I’ll also add that the Navarre commentary has ties to Opus Dei. A lot of the criticism from Opus Dei are carried onto the Navarre commentaries. I’ve heard that the Navarre commentaries are written in such a way to convey the theological positions of Opus Dei without using objective historical-critical methods. I’ve never really tried to get into the Opus Dei debate because of how contested it is, but I do want to acknowledge this potential bias on either side of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Might watch some of the YouTube vids by Fr. Mitch Pacwa and other solid Catholic sources. Surprisingly, a lot of prophecy is long past. This fascination with making it all apply to today seems to be primarily those with:
  1. An anti-Catholic agenda
  2. No history prior to the European rebellion
  3. A penchant for making things up
    4 Who may be lead by any passing, worldly spirit.
As you know, it certainly worked for Ellen G. White, may she rest in peace.
 
If I might, I’d like to add my small humble voice to the discussion that seems to have sprung up. I am a newer Catholic but I’d like to say I’m fairly well read. There is of course all the room in the world for intense debates over interpretation of dogma, scripture, etc. However, to offer some perspective, even those labeled (often in mean spirit) as the harshest fundamentalists and conservatives of today would be considered miles more progressive than those just a century prior. My point is not to be in favor of some kind of “liberal agenda” in choosing which theologians to listen to. Rather, I’d like to point out that these terms of “liberal”, “traditionalist”, etc often bear the weight of their secular meanings. Jesus himself was criticized for how “liberal” he was with the laws of the Sabbath. Meanwhile, Peter was criticized for being too “conservative” at times in the early church. The Catholic church has been named the universal church. It cannot be universal if everyone can only see their own viewpoint with kindness. Continue to debate and express why you believe what you believe. Have compassion because those around you care just as much as you care about what they believe in too.
I believe I can learn from the strongest conservatives and the most progressive liberals alike. Let’s all learn from each other.
 
I would suggest testing the various commentaries by buying some used samples.

Navarre Bible: You can get them used, very cheap from Amazon. Eg. Gospel of Matthew - Book of Revelation - Genesis. Or search for whatever book you’re most interested in.

Ignatius Bible: You can do the same with the Ignatius Study Bible. (links to Amazon included. All of the New Testament is available, but I don’t know if all the Old Testament has all been published yet. A lot of them have; just google whatever OT Ignatius Bible book you’d be interested in and see if it’s available.

Jerome Bible: You can also get used copies of the Jerome (or New Jerome) Biblical Commentary - altho’ not individual books. It’s a large single volume containing both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. IMO, it’s very important for a Catholic however to have a sound knowledge of Catholic doctrine so they can recognize if what’s written in the commentary is misleading or contradictory to Catholic teaching.
I remember hearing or reading somewhere that “Satan will give you 99% of the truth just to sneak in 1% of his lies.” One has to be armed to recognize that 1%.

It depends upon what you are seeking - the Navarre and Ignatius for spiritual insights and fidelity to Catholic teaching; the Jerome is considered a historical/critical commentary.

Here’s a very brief review of various Commentaries (just numbers 1-7 - including the Navarre and Jerome - by Fr. William Most.

Late edit: If your parish has a good library, they may have some of these commentaries. I know our parish has the Ignatius New Testament volume. Not sure about the others.
 
Last edited:
In the preterist interpretation, the little horn is most likely Emperor Nero, who persecuted and martyred Christians.
 
I align my views of prophecy, especially when you’re talking about eschatological prophecy, with the Preterist version. It’s a view that many Catholic scholars hold and it makes the most sense when reading scripture, especially Daniel and The Apocalypse.

In short, nearly all of the prophecies and verses that deal with the end of the world, the Antichrist, 666, this generation, etc etc, have already been fulfilled. Much of what was written was describing the fall of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 ad and the end of the old covenant.
 
roseprince said:
I am a college freshman who is converting to Catholicism and hopefully will be confirmed very soon.
I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, and that church is particularly interested in reading and interpreting Bible prophecies. A big part of that is using passages from Daniel and Revelation to supposedly “prove” that the Catholic Church is the antichrist or “Little Horn” referred to in those verses. They have long complicated explanations for why the Bible verses support that. I was wondering how Catholics interpret these passages and Bible prophecies. I certainly don’t believe the former interpretations but I’m curious as to how the church understands them.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not play number games like the SDA’s do. The Church refrains from attaching official interpretations to the vast majority of Scripture, allowing a wide range of meaning and senses of the sacred text. We recognize the proper genre and audience of any given book, and forms understandings based on those. And for the most part, the interpretations of the few passages on which the Church has pronounced are negative, that is to say, “one cannot deny that this passage means this” without excluding other valid interpretations.

For Revelation and Daniel, they are rightly classed as apocalyptic literature, writings rich in symbolism meant to address issues current for the contemporary reader of the time. On a purely literary scale, Daniel is a work meant to encourage and exhort Jews suffering under Seleucid oppression, and Revelation does the same thing for Christians suffering Roman persecution (having already suffered a persecution under Nero 30-odd years previous, they were also then being persecuted by Domitian).

For us, Revelation is a vision of the future and the end times, but we are not obsessed with the precise meanings of numbers. It is also meaningful today, since Revelation gives us a symbolic picture of what heaven is right now, and so ties closely to our understanding of the Mass.
 
Also, and it has been discussed here before. A lot of SDA’s also obsess over the so-called 1260 day/year prophecy and desperately try to make that fit the years 538 to 1798. The claim is that the Popes started to get temporal power in 538 and that suffered a “mortal wound” in 1798 with Napoleon’s capture of Rome.

Both dates are false and it has been proven. There was nothing significant in 538 that increased the Pope’s power (in fact, it was decreased because he was then under the thumb of the Byzantine emperor) and the Pope’s temporal power did not end in 1798. It ended in 1870, with the capture and annexation of Rome by Italy. Counting 1260 years goes back to 610 during which happened…nothing.

Of course the plain explanation was that Ellen Gould White published her Great Controversy in 1858 and of course, she could not see into 1870. So what does this mean?

This means she falls right into the Biblical definition of false prophet, and by Biblical principles, she would have (in theory) merited the death penalty.
 
JGD said:
Your professors probably discredited it because it is faithful to Church doctrine and doesn’t include modern liberal biblical scholarship.
Click to expand...
Yes… Enemies of God always work overtime to discredit the GOSPEL and SCRIPTURES
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top