Catholic views on the end times

[Porknpie]

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

Cat, where did the interpretation of scripture first begin that the word “Spirit” means “Symbolic” or “Metaphorical”? The Church that approved John as scripture never had this understanding. This is man-made development that did not occur until the reformation. Who should one believe, one of the 16th century reformers, a local bible Church Pastor or St Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John, the Apostle…taught by Christ 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).

Justin Martyr even comments on this apostolic faith…believing 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).

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

Cat, I apologize if I came of as ridiculing. That was not my intention and meaning. Your supposition that the bible interprets itself is a false one. It’s a man-made doctrine and the existence of 40,000 protestant denominations is proof on it’s own that it doesn’t work. Rather, the bible is interpreted by the Church Christ established, the pillar and bulwark of truth, based on the apostolic faith that was handed down.

• This apostolic faith is how you can trust that the bible you are holding is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God…the canon determined infallibly by the Catholic Church
• This same apostolic faith & Catholic Church has taught that Eucharist is not symbolic, rather is the actual resurrected body and blood of our Lord.

You show me the verse in the Bible that uses the word “trinity” or “bride of Christ”.

No word Trinity but you implicitly trust the Catholic Church to have determined its doctrinal nature…just like you trust the Catholic Church to have determined the bible you own is the Word of God.

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

What did Christ say?

53 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**.

You still need to find someone in the early Church that believed that the Eucharist was symbolic. If Christ taught his disciples without error and they taught their descendents the same, it should be pretty evident that the Church believed in a symbolic meal.

You can look and read … you will not find anyone in the early Church believing in a symbolic meal. Read about the Early Church Fathers on this subject here.

I highly recommend listening to the following talk by Brant Pitre on Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. He explains why the Jewish converts to Christianity so readily believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It’s well worth your hour. Link is here.

Charity,

Pork

 

[robwar]

Pork,
you make great points that I agree with 100% but the problems with trying to discuss this with someone into dispensationalism is that it’s too easy to get off topic and again it becomes circular because it appears that this could be someone not too interested in learning but promoting a narrow unbiblical fundamental view on unsuspecting Catholics. It is hard to discuss historical Biblical interpretations when the mindset is set and they won’t budge and realize they are wrong.

 

[Porknpie]

Pork,
you make great points that I agree with 100% but the problems with trying to discuss this with someone into dispensationalism is that it’s too easy to get off topic and again it becomes circular because it appears that this could be someone not too interested in learning but promoting a narrow unbiblical fundamental view on unsuspecting Catholics. It is hard to discuss historical Biblical interpretations when the mindset is set and they won’t budge and realize they are wrong.

It is an interesting thing:

Protestant to Catholic: where is the Assumption of Mary in the bible?

Catholic to Protestant: where is Sola Scriptura in the bible and where in the bible does it say what books should be in the bible?

On the above, Catholics hold to the deposit of faith being Tradition as passed on from the apostles and the Written Word of God. Never are they in conflict. On the subject of the Eucharist, the Brandt Pitre video is great. It in some sense of the word, brings to life that the Jewish Christian converts all believed in the Real Presence AND … importantly, why they did so. One must remember that there was no bible at this time.

One can reason to the truth here. Choices are:

1. Believe the teachings of Christ as past on to the apostles and that they passed on their successors (the bible itself interpreted correctly, St. Ignatius, Justin Martyr’s writings as examples)
2. Believe a new gospel invented in the16th century, fueled by a Sola Scriptura theology, … with no roots in the Church (no documents anywhere the profess a symbolic Eucharist…this is an example of “Conflict” mentioned above)

In the end, one must reason that Christ established a One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…One Faith.

 

[robwar]

It is an interesting thing:

Protestant to Catholic: where is the Assumption of Mary in the bible?

Catholic to Protestant: where is Sola Scriptura in the bible and where in the bible does it say what books should be in the bible?

On the above, Catholics hold to the deposit of faith being Tradition as passed on from the apostles and the Written Word of God. Never are they in conflict. On the subject of the Eucharist, the Brandt Pitre video is great. It in some sense of the word, brings to life that the Jewish Christian converts all believed in the Real Presence AND … importantly, why they did so. One must remember that there was no bible at this time.

One can reason to the truth here. Choices are:

1. Believe the teachings of Christ as past on to the apostles and that they passed on their successors (the bible itself interpreted correctly, St. Ignatius, Justin Martyr’s writings as examples)
2. Believe a new gospel invented in the16th century, fueled by a Sola Scriptura theology, … with no roots in the Church (no documents anywhere the profess a symbolic Eucharist…this is an example of “Conflict” mentioned above)

In the end, one must reason that Christ established a One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…One Faith.

Yes, this is it and in reference to this thread’s topic over end times, it is very easy to have a bunch of Bible verses quoted at you and have them manipulated into something that the Bible itself does not teach, a pre-tribulation rapture. Even the groups that believe in this can’t agree and argue among themselves if it is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or a-trib and they can get heated on who is more Biblically accurate. When one reads and studies where and when these ideas and view points come from and that this is a late 19th Century invention that came out of a dispensationalist view of the Bible, then one should be honest and see that this is a house of cards ready to fall.

 

[dronald]

I want to write something up soon for everyone as to how I came to accept Catholicism (I decided it must be the truth about two weeks ago)

I can argue just about any point Catholics bring up from an Evangelical, Protestant perspective and I can do it quite well. Just as I often defend my Faith against Muslims, etc. However, there is no arguing how the Early Church felt about the real presence. To believe with all the historical evidence that the Eucharist is (or was ever believed to be) symbolic seems illogical to me so I must convert.

Anyways, I encourage Catholics to continue to press the issue of historicity of the Real Presence because it’s by far the most convincing argument.

 

[QuickCat]

Cat, where did the interpretation of scripture first begin that the word “Spirit” means “Symbolic” or “Metaphorical”? The Church that approved John as scripture never had this understanding. This is man-made development that did not occur until the reformation. Who should one believe, one of the 16th century reformers, a local bible Church Pastor or St Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John, the Apostle…taught by Christ 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).

Justin Martyr even comments on this apostolic faith…believing 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).

Cat, I apologize if I came of as ridiculing. That was not my intention and meaning. Your supposition that the bible interprets itself is a false one. It’s a man-made doctrine and the existence of 40,000 protestant denominations is proof on it’s own that it doesn’t work. Rather, the bible is interpreted by the Church Christ established, the pillar and bulwark of truth, based on the apostolic faith that was handed down.

• This apostolic faith is how you can trust that the bible you are holding is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God…the canon determined infallibly by the Catholic Church
• This same apostolic faith & Catholic Church has taught that Eucharist is not symbolic, rather is the actual resurrected body and blood of our Lord.

No word Trinity but you implicitly trust the Catholic Church to have determined its doctrinal nature…just like you trust the Catholic Church to have determined the bible you own is the Word of God.

What did Christ say?

53 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**.

You still need to find someone in the early Church that believed that the Eucharist was symbolic. If Christ taught his disciples without error and they taught their descendents the same, it should be pretty evident that the Church believed in a symbolic meal.

You can look and read … you will not find anyone in the early Church believing in a symbolic meal. Read about the Early Church Fathers on this subject here.

I highly recommend listening to the following talk by Brant Pitre on Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. He explains why the Jewish converts to Christianity so readily believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It’s well worth your hour. Link is here.

Charity,

Pork

Pork: I am greatly concerned that members of the Catholic church do not know the gospel. Dr. Peter Kreef [a well know Catholic apologist] has stated that, “Many Catholics do not know the gospel by which one is saved.” You just confirmed his statement. I have discussed this with many of my Catholic friends; a teacher of religion; and Catholic pastors, I have yet had one tell me that the Lord Jesus Christ paid the sin debt on the cross and that the gospel is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 and Acts 16:30,31. A priest told me that everyone is saved. A monsignor told me that I must pray 3xs a day in order to go to heaven. Four friends told me that I must keep the commandments - interestingly, none of them could tell me what they are. None of these people even mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ.
As an ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ [2 Cor. 5:19] I am compelled to share the gospel of the grace of God with you. My Lord and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, had you personally in mind when He went to the cross. He paid your sin debt in full. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Believe that he died on the cross for your sins, that He was buried and that He rose from the grave and God the Father accepted His work on the cross in full payment for your/my sin debt.
QC

 

[robwar]

Pork: I am greatly concerned that members of the Catholic church do not know the gospel. Dr. Peter Kreef [a well know Catholic apologist] has stated that, “Many Catholics do not know the gospel by which one is saved.” You just confirmed his statement. I have discussed this with many of my Catholic friends; a teacher of religion; and Catholic pastors, I have yet had one tell me that the Lord Jesus Christ paid the sin debt on the cross and that the gospel is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 and Acts 16:30,31. A priest told me that everyone is saved. A monsignor told me that I must pray 3xs a day in order to go to heaven. Four friends told me that I must keep the commandments - interestingly, none of them could tell me what they are. None of these people even mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ.
As an ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ [2 Cor. 5:19] I am compelled to share the gospel of the grace of God with you. My Lord and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, had you personally in mind when He went to the cross. He paid your sin debt in full. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Believe that he died on the cross for your sins, that He was buried and that He rose from the grave and God the Father accepted His work on the cross in full payment for your/my sin debt.
QC

Are you here to evangelize since according to CAF rules, your are proletyzing Catholics away from their faith since you are admitting that Catholics don’t know Jesus, the Bible and are not saved. You are breaking rules here.

 

[Porknpie]

Pork: I am greatly concerned that members of the Catholic church do not know the gospel. Dr. Peter Kreef [a well know Catholic apologist] has stated that, “Many Catholics do not know the gospel by which one is saved.” You just confirmed his statement. I have discussed this with many of my Catholic friends; a teacher of religion; and Catholic pastors, I have yet had one tell me that the Lord Jesus Christ paid the sin debt on the cross and that the gospel is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 and Acts 16:30,31. A priest told me that everyone is saved. A monsignor told me that I must pray 3xs a day in order to go to heaven. Four friends told me that I must keep the commandments - interestingly, none of them could tell me what they are. None of these people even mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ.

Quick,

Since you are concerned with my salvation ( and have not responded to and do not have an answer for why the early Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ) I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll convert from Catholicism to your Church if you can show me where in the bible it says that we are saved by “Faith Alone”. But you have to convert to Catholicism if I can show you from the bible that we are not saved by faith alone.

You go first. I’ll be waiting.

As you look for the quote saying we are saved by “faith alone”, remember you are reading from a Catholic book!

Seriously though Quick, listen to the Brant Pitre video and learn why the early Christian Church so readily believed in the Real Presence. And then there is the subject of the OP that Christ will come twice. This too is not rooted in the apostolic faith taught by Christ to the apostles and twists the Written Word of God.

On Peter Kreeft. I happened to watch the following video over the weekend. Link is here. The subject is Angels and Demons. Another great way to spend an hour. At least it was for me… perhaps for you too…

Pork

 

[Porknpie]

I want to write something up soon for everyone as to how I came to accept Catholicism (I decided it must be the truth about two weeks ago)

I can argue just about any point Catholics bring up from an Evangelical, Protestant perspective and I can do it quite well. Just as I often defend my Faith against Muslims, etc. However, there is no arguing how the Early Church felt about the real presence. To believe with all the historical evidence that the Eucharist is (or was ever believed to be) symbolic seems illogical to me so I must convert.

Anyways, I encourage Catholics to continue to press the issue of historicity of the Real Presence because it’s by far the most convincing argument.

Donald,

Congratulations. Please share your story when you get a chance. Perhaps start a new thread. Are you starting in RCIA?

And do watch the Brand Pitre video on the Eucharist…

Pork

 

[Church_Militant]

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."

The only connection that John 6 actually has to the end times is verses 39, 40, 44, and 55

The context of that chapter is far from metaphorical and to assert so is wishful thinking at its theological worst because the context of Our Lord’s complete lack of explanation (in light of Mark 4:34) and the reaction and desertion of so many of his disciples insures that we know that Christ was speaking of a literal miracle…which is what the Eucharist is.

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”.

This is further bad theology and not supported by the Bible itself. It nowhere makes this claim any more than it makes a claim to be the only and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice. It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?

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

If this is your acid test for believers then it fails in an epic way because anyone who has read the New Testament (at least!) will know that it is difficult to sum up all that our love for and commitment to Christ entails. Having considered this carefully I have put together a short and concise summation of what our journey of faith involves in my blog article called How Is A Catholic Saved?

Also, this very site has a very fine tract that shares this same Gospel message in greater detail and is available for use in evangelism. It is called God’s Love for You

The end times? There is also a couple of excellent resources available that speak to this issue as well and we should avail ourselves of them.
shop.catholic.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/135x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/b/e/beginning-apologetics-8.jpg

Beginning Apologetics 8: What Catholics Believe about the Second Coming, the Rapture, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and Indulgences

                                                                              $5.95

shop.catholic.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/135x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/e/n/end-of-the-world.jpg

What Jesus Really Said About The End Of The World
$14.95

 

[dronald]

Donald,

Congratulations. Please share your story when you get a chance. Perhaps start a new thread. Are you starting in RCIA?

And do watch the Brand Pitre video on the Eucharist…

Pork

Thanks! And I’ll check it out.

I’m meeting with a Priest at a beautiful Cathedral in my home city this Thursday. I know he’ll walk me through whatever.

 

[DavidWJackson]

The church i joined in 04 was not a Catholic church. I was taught there about the end times. That in the end all the faithful would just disappear. The ani christ would be in charge for 7 years during which time those left behind could still have a chance to come to Christ…basically every thing in the Left Behind book series. Now that I am in the Catholic church i understand Catholics dont believe this. Im quite sure i will be dead long before Christ returns but im a curious type and would like to know what the thoughts and beliefs of the Catholic church is. I am also the type of person who needs to know why! If you could please give me verses to support the beliefs it would sure help me understand.
Thanks

Please purchase “The Catechism of The Catholic Church”. It should answer every question you could possibly have concerning the Catholic Church giving all references for the Church’s teachings. Or, go to a library. It’s probably on the web too. I’ve never searched for it on line. New Advent would also be a wonderful web sight for you. It has the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I know, only God the Father knows the day and time He will send His Son back. I also know, the sun has a good billion plus years to go before it burns out. So, the time frame for Christ’s return is from this very second to a billion plus years. However, what’s going on in the middle east right now should bring the greatest urgency to all to seek out lost souls and bring them to Christ. If you believe you see a lost soul somewhere pray to your Angel Guardian to interact with their Angel Guardian and the Saints in Heaven to bring that soul into the fold and back to Christ…
From personal contemplation, as for when Christ returns - the dead in Christ will rise. I kind of think it’s possible that may have already happened. It’s worth a good debate on a new thread anyway. When Christ raised Himself on the third day and returned to us scripture states many of the dead came back to life and walked the earth. Christ also made the statement that those that believe in Him will never die. Elsewhere Christ explains that God is the God of the living, not the dead. It’s also worth pondering if those who are currently asleep in Christ aren’t those who lived out Christ like lives yet never heard of Christ and need to wait for the final judgment for conformation.
There are many things we can ponder. But, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the RULE of all teachings and truths that can be explained within the Christian/Catholic faith. Some things can’t be explained before we reach Heaven and we just have to except that.