Catholic views on the end times

[QuickCat]

[QUOTEthere will be no “earthly kingdom” after these events.

The O.T. is filled with prophesies about the coming earthly kingdom. Our Lord Jesus Christ spent His last 40 days on earth teaching the eleven [from the O.T.} about this literal earthly kingdom. He “opened their understanding” of these O.T. Scriptures. The eleven asked Him, “Will you AT THIS TIME restore AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?” He had not actually covered the time element with them. Further, during His earthly ministry [strictly to Israel], He told the twelve that “…they would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” in this kingdom.

Please see:

Acts 1:3, 6; Luke 24:45; Matthew 19:28.

Keep looking up, the rapture is imminent.
QC

 

[robwar]

[QUOTEthere will be no “earthly kingdom” after these events.

The O.T. is filled with prophesies about the coming earthly kingdom. Our Lord Jesus Christ spent His last 40 days on earth teaching the eleven [from the O.T.} about this literal earthly kingdom. He “opened their understanding” of these O.T. Scriptures. The eleven asked Him, “Will you AT THIS TIME restore AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?” He had not actually covered the time element with them. Further, during His earthly ministry [strictly to Israel], He told the twelve that “…they would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” in this kingdom.

Please see:

Acts 1:3, 6; Luke 24:45; Matthew 19:28.

Keep looking up, the rapture is imminent.
QC

Jesus did teach the apostles and they in turn passed on to their successors correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and that is called sacred tradition and the rapture is not one of them. This is a novel idea that developed in the 19th century. No matter how many Bible verses you want to quote here, the pre-tribulation rapture theory is not Biblical and again is not taught by the Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant Churches.

 

[QuickCat]

Jesus did teach the apostles and they in turn passed on to their successors correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and that is called sacred tradition and the rapture is not one of them. This is a novel idea that developed in the 19th century. No matter how many Bible verses you want to quote here, the pre-tribulation rapture theory is not Biblical and again is not taught by the Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant Churches.

The first order of business of the eleven in early Acts was to bring their number back up to twelve. After our Lord had spent 40 days teaching them about the coming earthly kingdom they were ready to fulfill His promise in Mt. 19:28. Peter even offers the return of the Lord to set up this kingdom in Acts 3:19-21.

Apostolic succession? Yes, until Acts 12 when James is killed, their is no record that the remaining apostles replaced him.

Love the Word of God!
QC

 

[robwar]

The first order of business of the eleven in early Acts was to bring their number back up to twelve. After our Lord had spent 40 days teaching them about the coming earthly kingdom they were ready to fulfill His promise in Mt. 19:28. Peter even offers the return of the Lord to set up this kingdom in Acts 3:19-21.

Apostolic succession? Yes, until Acts 12 when James is killed, their is no record that the remaining apostles replaced him.

Love the Word of God!
QC

Is this what you really think? So when St. Paul writes in his letter to Timothy and Titus about appointing Bishops, that doesn’t mean anything? Since you seem to love the Bible, how do you seriously think and who decided which was done in the 300’s put it together in the final form we know today. Who decided what to include and exclude? The Bible doesn’t list them and it was done well after the apostles died. Do you seriously think that Jesus meant to only have 12 and when they died that was it? My point is that what you want to believe is not supported at all in the Bible and by history itself. Jesus clearly established a Church, it is on based on the rock of St. Peter and Jesus clearly set up a authority structure starting with the 12 an is now carried out into today’s magisterium of the Church.

 

[QuickCat]

Is this what you really think? So when St. Paul writes in his letter to Timothy and Titus about appointing Bishops, that doesn’t mean anything? Since you seem to love the Bible, how do you seriously think and who decided which was done in the 300’s put it together in the final form we know today. Who decided what to include and exclude? The Bible doesn’t list them and it was done well after the apostles died. Do you seriously think that Jesus meant to only have 12 and when they died that was it? My point is that what you want to believe is not supported at all in the Bible and by history itself. Jesus clearly established a Church, it is on based on the rock of St. Peter and Jesus clearly set up a authority structure starting with the 12 an is now carried out into today’s magisterium of the Church.

You bring in a lot of new things to this thread on the “end times.” I will be happy to patiently discuss all these new things if you want to start a new thread. I will tell you that Mt. 16:18 must be interpreted in the light of our Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel and His promise to the 12 in Mt. 19:28. You apparently confuse our Lord’s ministry to Israel and His teaching about their coming kingdom with the Body of Christ. You can’t do that without “spiritualizing” a myriad of Scriptures foretelling this kingdom.

You are quite correct that Paul established local churches and directed Timothy and Titus to appoint overseers {Bishops]. Have you noticed that a Bishop is to be “the husband of one wife?”

Also, have you noticed that Paul, after telling the Thessalonians about the coming “rapture”, says that they should "Comfort one another with these words. WOW!
QC

 

[feed_me]

You bring in a lot of new things to this thread on the “end times.” I will be happy to patiently discuss all these new things if you want to start a new thread. I will tell you that Mt. 16:18 must be interpreted in the light of our Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel and His promise to the 12 in Mt. 19:28. You apparently confuse our Lord’s ministry to Israel and His teaching about their coming kingdom with the Body of Christ. You can’t do that without “spiritualizing” a myriad of Scriptures foretelling this kingdom.

You are quite correct that Paul established local churches and directed Timothy and Titus to appoint overseers {Bishops]. Have you noticed that a Bishop is to be “the husband of one wife?”

Also, have you noticed that Paul, after telling the Thessalonians about the coming “rapture”, says that they should "Comfort one another with these words. WOW!
QC

And that is what the church has been doing which is following God.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

5 Posts deleted for not being on topic.

 

[Miriam1947]

---

Yes this is the accurate Catholic teaching and makes a lot of sense too.

However Catholics also believe in private revelations in addition to Revelation of Scripture, Church Tradition and the teaching of the Magesterium. One of the private revelations is that of Mother Mary to the seers at Medjugorje. They have been told that all that Mother Mary has revealed to them will happen in their lifetime. One of the elder seers viz. Mirjana is 48 yrs old as of today, Even if we assume that the average lifetime of a human being today is 75 yrs then to happen in her lifetime, all that has been prophesied would happen on or before 27 yrs from now i.e. on or before 2040. So some of the replies to this question about end-times definitively says that the end times wouldn’t occur during our lifetime is not correct. It can happen during our lifetime and as Catholics we need to be prepared anytime for the second coming of Christ or our death whichever comes first so that our souls would be in a state of sanctifying grace at the moment of our death or at the time of the second coming. When Jesus said that no one would know the day or hour of His second coming, he did not mean that we would not know the general time of his coming. That would be possible to be known from the signs of the times which have been described in detail in the gospels. The above explanation that it could happen before 2040 does not mean that we know the day or hour but it means that we could be the end-time generation and so we better be prepared by keeping our life in order by taking recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation whenever we sin. Delaying does not help because Christ rightly said we do not know the day or hour of his coming so it can happen today or any other time of our lifetime or after our death but in all cases what is important is that we remain in the state of sanctifying grace at all times. That is prudence.

Medjugorje is not an approved apparition of the Church. Personally, I think it is a hoax.

 

[pablope]

The apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, confirms the dispensational approach to the Word of God - Eph. 3:2. He says that the “…dispensation of the grace of God…” was revealed to him for us. Our Lord Jesus Christ recognized the dispensational approach in Luke 4;18-19. He is quoting from Isa. 61:1,2 and closed the scroll right in the middle of the sentence. It wasn’t time for reveal the “day of vengeance of our God…” The following URL gives a brief history of the belief of a coming kingdom, on earth, in the early church.
QC
pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-ABriefHistoryofEarly.pdf

No…that is according to their interpretation.

Here is another non-Catholic who disagrees…and is quite popular in protestant circles, as far as I can tell:

Ralph Woodrow: the-highway.com/rapture_Woodrow1.html

But do the scriptures teach that the rapture will be a secret, invisible, and quiet event? Let us look at the main verse on the rapture and see.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a SHOUT, with the VOICE of the archangel, and with the TRUMP of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:16, 17).

To us, this verse indicates anything but a quiet, secret rapture. Whether we take the “shout”, the “voice”, and the “trump” in a literal sense or as having a figurative meaning, either way, this passage does not convey the idea of a secret and quiet event! If anything, it would indicate that the coming of the Lord will be a loud, noisy, open, and wonderous event. Amid the sound of the Lord himself descending from heaven with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God, there will be the sounds of praise and rejoicing from vast multitudes of saints as they are caught up to meet the Lord! Where is any secrecy here? This is not the description of a hidden and quiet event. Nevertheless, in spite of every indication to the contrary, this verse is constantly used as a text for sermons which describe the rapture as a secret, hidden, and quiet coming of Christ!

The scriptures do teach, of course, that Christ will return “as a thief in the night.” This means that the TIME of his coming is unknown. It will come as a complete surprise to those who are not watching for his return. But the use of this term never indicates in any way that the EVENT ITSELF will be secret and quiet. The “thief” passages are found in the words of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, which we will now consider.

Instead of teaching that he would return in a secret coming, Jesus actually warned against this concept: “If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not . . . If they shall say unto you . . . behold, he is in the SECRET chambers; believe it not. FOR as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Mt. 24:23,26,27). Whatever else may be included in these statements, one thing is certain: such wording is surely contrary to the idea of “secrecy” in connection with the coming of Christ.

 

[apfrita]

Medjugorje is not an approved apparition of the Church. Personally, I think it is a hoax.

Not an approved apparition does not mean it is disapproved. It only means that it can be approved or disapproved in future. So please don’t make judgements on your own.

And your thinking it as a hoax is your own private opinion not an opinion of the Church!!!

 

[Porknpie]

In 1 Thess 4:13-18 our Lord comes “in the air” and we believers are “caught up.” He does not come to earth at that time. His 2nd coming is to the earth to establish the long promised kingdom for Israel. At the time of 1 Thess 4, believers will be changed [1 Cor 15:51ff]. We are to be watching for our “Blessed Hope” [Titus 2:13] and telling others about it. Oh Happy Day!
QC

Next to Jcseph Smith, the Christ coming twice idea is the most man-made up doctrine that I can think of…horribly twisting scripture.

This happens when one takes a Catholic book and removes it from the apostolic faith that produced it.

2 Peter 3:16 below

16 speaking of this[a] as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

In this case, the second coming of Christ is not hard to understand. What Christ himself taught his apostles and what the apostles taught their decendants is that Christ comes once at the end of time. This is what is written in the bible and reflected in the history of the Church.

 

[Miriam1947]

Not an approved apparition does not mean it is disapproved. It only means that it can be approved or disapproved in future. So please don’t make judgements on your own.

And your thinking it as a hoax is your own private opinion not an opinion of the Church!!!

Where is the judgement? It is not approved. Period. Will it be? I don’t know and neither do you.

And if you read what I wrote, you will see that I said in my personal opinion it is a hoax. I still think that.

And if the Church approves it, (which I hope she doesn’t) I still do not have to believe in it.

 

[QuickCat]

No…that is according to their interpretation.

Here is another non-Catholic who disagrees…and is quite popular in protestant circles, as far as I can tell:

Ralph Woodrow: the-highway.com/rapture_Woodrow1.html

But do the scriptures teach that the rapture will be a secret, invisible, and quiet event? Let us look at the main verse on the rapture and see.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a SHOUT, with the VOICE of the archangel, and with the TRUMP of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:16, 17).

To us, this verse indicates anything but a quiet, secret rapture. Whether we take the “shout”, the “voice”, and the “trump” in a literal sense or as having a figurative meaning, either way, this passage does not convey the idea of a secret and quiet event! If anything, it would indicate that the coming of the Lord will be a loud, noisy, open, and wonderous event. Amid the sound of the Lord himself descending from heaven with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God, there will be the sounds of praise and rejoicing from vast multitudes of saints as they are caught up to meet the Lord! Where is any secrecy here? This is not the description of a hidden and quiet event. Nevertheless, in spite of every indication to the contrary, this verse is constantly used as a text for sermons which describe the rapture as a secret, hidden, and quiet coming of Christ!

The scriptures do teach, of course, that Christ will return “as a thief in the night.” This means that the TIME of his coming is unknown. It will come as a complete surprise to those who are not watching for his return. But the use of this term never indicates in any way that the EVENT ITSELF will be secret and quiet. The “thief” passages are found in the words of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, which we will now consider.

Instead of teaching that he would return in a secret coming, Jesus actually warned against this concept: “If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not . . . If they shall say unto you . . . behold, he is in the SECRET chambers; believe it not. FOR as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Mt. 24:23,26,27). Whatever else may be included in these statements, one thing is certain: such wording is surely contrary to the idea of “secrecy” in connection with the coming of Christ.

Woodrow is hardly a spokesman for Protestantism. He, too, confuses the 2nd coming with the rapture. Mt. 24 & 25 have the 2nd coming TO EARTH in view. While 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51ff; Titus 2:13 have the rapture in view. Our Lord comes in the air to “catch UP” the believers, both the living and the dead. Paul is the one to whom the Lord {from heaven] revealed the rapture.
You and Woodrow continue to confuse the two comings.
QC

 

[pablope]

Woodrow is hardly a spokesman for Protestantism.

Then who is the spokesman for Protentatism? As far as I can tell…you protestants could not even agree on who should be the spokesman?

He, too, confuses the 2nd coming with the rapture. Mt. 24 & 25 have the 2nd coming TO EARTH in view.

 

[QuickCat]

Then who is the spokesman for Protentatism? As far as I can tell…you protestants could not even agree on who should be the spokesman?

 

[Porknpie]

The Word of God is spiritually discerned. It is alive and powerful.** It interprets itself**. If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. So sorry you are having such a problem understanding the difference between our Lord Jesus Christ “catching up” the believers and His return to earth to set up His earthly kingdom.
I’ll pray for you to understand this simple difference.
QC

Such a man-made doctrine.

Please cite the chapter and verse in the bible where the bible says it interprets itself.

 

[QuickCat]

Such a man-made doctrine.

Please cite the chapter and verse in the bible where the bible says it interprets itself.

The Word of God does interpret itself. It will interpret itself in one of three ways:
1.In the verse where it is written a.Verses must be understood in light of their biblical meaning
b.Verses must be in harmony with other verses on the same subject
c.Narrative Development

2.In its context
3.By previous usage

Most of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse right where it is written.

Genesis 1
:1 In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth
This verse needs no explanation, in the beginning God created the heaven and earth.

John 3
:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.

The words in this verse are plain as well.

The Word of God is spiritually discerned. Tell me, does not 1 Cor. 15:1-4 mean exactly what it says? Paul calls it the "gospel by which you are S-A-V-E-D. What do you want to make it say?

The Word of God must also be “rightly divided.” 2 Tim 2:15. When Israel is in view we must not “spiritualize” it to mean the church. When Paul writes that the “dispensation of the Grace of God was given to him” for us. What does that mean? When he tells the jailer to, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…” Do we need to change what he says? Of course not. When Peter addressing Israel, tells them to “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” do we ignore the fact that he is addressing Israel? Or do we connect this with Ex. 19:5-6; Ex. 40:12 and 1 Peter 2:9 and know that Israel is to become a kingdom of priests and the water ritual is the indicatory rite for this office in Israel? When James writes to the 12 tribes scattered abroad is he addressing Israel or the Body of Christ?
QC

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Personally, I enjoy the Left Behind books, but the important things to remember are they are 1.) Fiction (that means someone made it up!) and 2.) any biblical truth that might be found there is based on personal study and private revelation, not the careful study of the church. As one apologetics tract asked: “Where is your authority?”

Thank you to all the posters that have put forth the true Catholic teaching. I really do wish we would spend more time putting these teachings out there. Everyone wants to know “how, when, where, what,” and I think that’s why some leave for more fundamentalist churches. It’s not because they feel more connected to Jesus there. It’s because that church fulfills their wants and needs.

 

[Porknpie]

The Word of God does interpret itself. It will interpret itself in one of three ways:
1.In the verse where it is written a.Verses must be understood in light of their biblical meaning
b.Verses must be in harmony with other verses on the same subject
c.Narrative Development

2.In its context
3.By previous usage

Most of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse right where it is written.

Cat,

Then you should have no problem accepting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 1, 2 and 3 above all apply to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

John 6 below

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[c] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

And

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

What I would add as a Catholic is Catholics understand the bible in light of the Tradition from which it came from. Hence, we can read what St Ignatius said about the real presence. Keep in mind that he was a disciple of St John…the apostle taught by Jesus himself.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

And then there is Justin Martyr writing the same, adding that they have been taught by the apostolic faith in the real presence.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

So Cat if you don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist the question is why not? The Church has always believed in it and this is reflected in the writings of John 6.

You still have not given a bible verse saying that the bible self interprets itself. How about a quote from one of the early Catholic bishops that attest to this as a practice? You do understand that the biblical canon was put together for teaching but also to have a universal set of readings for the Catholic Mass…yes you understand?

 

[QuickCat]

Cat,

Then you should have no problem accepting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 1, 2 and 3 above all apply to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

John 6 below

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[c] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

And

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

What I would add as a Catholic is Catholics understand the bible in light of the Tradition from which it came from. Hence, we can read what St Ignatius said about the real presence. Keep in mind that he was a disciple of St John…the apostle taught by Jesus himself.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

And then there is Justin Martyr writing the same, adding that they have been taught by the apostolic faith in the real presence.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

So Cat if you don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist the question is why not? The Church has always believed in it and this is reflected in the writings of John 6.

You still have not given a bible verse saying that the bible self interprets itself. How about a quote from one of the early Catholic bishops that attest to this as a practice? You do understand that the biblical canon was put together for teaching but also to have a universal set of readings for the Catholic Mass…yes you understand?

Thanks for the question. Of course I believe all that is written in John 6. Speaking of His flesh and His blood, the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking metaphorically. He states as much in verse 63: It is the Spirit that giveth life; the flesh profited nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

You didn’t answer any of my questions. I have given you adequate proof that the Bible {cap. “B”] interprets itself. Your “straw dummy” question is ridicules You show me the verse in the Bible that uses the word “trinity” or “bride of Christ”.

Can you tell me in two sentences the gospel by which a person is saved in this dispensation of the grace of God?.
QC