Good Catholic Guide to the Apocalypse?

[PrayHarder]

First of all, I’m really happy because I just finished my two-year project of reading the entire New Testament. I know I’m not setting any records, but I feel good about this small accomplishment.

I’ve always been slightly curious about the Apocalypse but reading the Book of Revelations left me very confused. There are so many people, places, events, and numbers that I had a hard time digesting it all. Is there a good book or guide that gives the Catholic explanation to the Book of Revelations? I’m not looking for someone’s predictions on when or how it will occur (so please, don’t try to pawn off your Y2K book on me ), but more of an explanation of the Catholic Church’s teachings on this subject. I know that Protestants view this topic very differently from Catholics (ie, the Rapture) so I want to read something that is in line with the Catholic Church. Any suggestions?

 

[yinekka]

Revelation is written in apocalyptic language and is very difficult to understand. I don’t think that the Church has any official interpretation and so many people have theorised what it means.

Scott Hahn’s book *The Lamb’s Supper *is a great interpretation of parts of Revelation. Dr Hahn brings to us the understanding of the Church Fathers and his own understandings to show us how parts of Revelation relate to the Sacrifice of the Mass. Reading it changed the was I participated in the Holy Mass for the better.

 

[Luke65]

I would recommend “The Apocalypse of St. John” by Robert Sungenis, and for Catholic prophecy “Trial, Tribulation & Triumph” by Desmond Birch. And here are some good online resources:

haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=248224

litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Eschatology

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Scott Hahn has an excellent 10 disk audio series that comes with a complete workbook and it goes verse by verse through revelations, with cross-referencing from the church fathers, the olivet discourse, the Old Testament, etc. I would highly recommend it. It’s called “The End.” You can find it at St. Joseph’s communications, but I got it off ebay.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

As addendum to the above, it it not necessarily the most traditional view of the apocalypse taken by the church

 

[DavidPalm]

I would recommend “The Apocalypse of St. John” by Robert Sungenis, and for Catholic prophecy “Trial, Tribulation & Triumph” by Desmond Birch. And here are some good online resources:

haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=248224

litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Eschatology

I think it’s fair to point out that Sungenis’ bishop denied the request for an imprimatur for the CASB volume on “The Apocalypse of St. John”. It contains both inflammatory rhetoric against Jews and also some serious blunders in scholarship. See documentation here:

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/casb2s-missing-imprimatur-real-reason.html

and here:

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/07/sungenis-smears-bishop-continues-to.html

 

[vee8]

Hello to the OP you might want to drop by this thread and ask your question there as well.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=306966

 

[Luke65]

I think it’s fair to point out that Sungenis’ bishop denied the request for an imprimatur for the CASB volume on “The Apocalypse of St. John”. It contains both inflammatory rhetoric against Jews and also some serious blunders in scholarship. See documentation here:

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/casb2s-missing-imprimatur-real-reason.html

and here:

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/07/sungenis-smears-bishop-continues-to.html

I think its fair to point out that his bishop, Kevin Rhoades, denied him the imprimatur based on page 131 of the USCCB Catechism, which contained a heresy that Bishop Rhoades defended, but is now being removed from the Catechism, thanks in large part to Sungenis. Read the story here. Furthermore, I think its very unfair and uncharitable for our Catholic brethren to continue to attack Sungenis for things that he said or wrote which he has apologized for and or removed from his website. If you understood the prophecies you would see things differently.

 

[DavidPalm]

I think its fair to point out that his bishop, Kevin Rhoades, denied him the imprimatur based on page 131 of the USCCB Catechism, which contained a heresy that Bishop Rhoades defended, but is now being removed from the Catechism, thanks in large part to Sungenis.

This is incorrect and a very serious error on your part. Bishop Rhoades did not defend any heresy. He clearly enunciated his position and called Sungenis’ characterization of his views “slanderous and erroneous”. This is fully documented here:

Bishop Rhoades Sets The Record Straight

Slandering the Bishop, Again

It is an unsupported and erroneous assertion that Bishop Rhoades denied the imprimatur based on the single phrase that has now been corrected by the USCCB. (And indeed, he voted to correct that passage.) In fact, there were very different reasons for denying the imprimatur:

CASB2’s Missing Imprimatur: The Real Reason the Bishop Said “No”?

Furthermore, I think its very unfair and uncharitable for our Catholic brethren to continue to attack Sungenis for things that he said or wrote which he has apologized for and or removed from his website. If you understood the prophecies you would see things differently.

The only “apologies” that Sungenis has put forth have been of the “I’m sorry you were offended” sort of pseudo-apology. SSPX Bishop Williamson has done the same recently (perhaps not so coincidentally, on the same topic) and, quite rightly, the Vatican has rejected those as insufficient. See this documented here:

Saying “Peace!” When There Is No Peace

Proverbs 26:11

If you understood the prophecies you would see things differently.

 

[Luke65]

This is incorrect and a very serious error on your part…

The record speaks for itself: Bishop Rhoades did in fact defend the very statement in the Catechism that the U.S. bishops, in an unprecedented move, voted to expunge from our Catechism. But I’m glad to hear that he apparently had a change of heart and decided to vote to remove the heretical statement. That vote had to be done by a secret ballot, but the bishops decided by a vote of 231-14 to remove it. But you’re derailing the thread. I said that I** recommend Sungenis’ book “The Apocalypse of St. John”, and you can take or leave my recommendation.

 

[DavidPalm]

The record speaks for itself: Bishop Rhoades did in fact defend the very statement in the Catechism that the U.S. bishops, in an unprecedented move, voted to expunge from our Catechism. But I’m glad to hear that he apparently had a change of heart and decided to vote to remove the heretical statement. That vote had to be done by a secret ballot, but the bishops decided by a vote of 231-14 to remove it. But you’re derailing the thread. I said that I recommend Sungenis’ book “The Apocalypse of St. John”, and you can take or leave my recommendation.

How is it derailing this thread to point out that one of the recommendations made is seriously suspect? That goes right to the heart of the thread.

However, regarding Bishop Rhoades, I agree that the record speaks for itself. But part of the problem is that Sungenis hasn’t seen fit to release the actual record with the bishop, but has instead selectively quoted what he finds most advantageous to him at any particular time. Sometimes, he hasn’t even done that much but has preferred to give his personal characterization of what the bishop wrote. Still, even what Sungenis sees fit to release doesn’t support his contentions.

Also, you’re playing fast and loose with your words, Luke. First, you said that Bishop Rhoades defended a heresy. Now you are saying that he defended a “statement” that was removed from the USCCA. These are two very different things. Your first statement was a very serious (and false) accusation. Your second phrase is somewhat more accurate, although he expressed his reservations even with the original statement.

The fact is, Bishop Rhoades did not take the one problematic sentence on page 131 of the USCCA in a heretical fashion – i.e. that that the Jewish people have their own salvific covenant with God. And so, it is false to say - as you did - that he defended heresy. He does not believe that the Jewish people have their own salvific covenant with God. In addition, he indicated his own reservations about the passage by acknowledging that it could cause confusion. And so, even your statement about his supposed “change of heart” in voting for the change to the USCCA is gratuitous. The actual record is sufficiently clear.

You might also note that before Sungenis went on the attack against Bishop Rhoades, Sungenis himself acknowledged that he might have been misunderstanding that passage of the USCCA when he wrote to the Vatican (see here). It seems likely that both men were exercising prudent restraint when they made these measured statements (but then, after being called to account by his bishop for his other outlandish writings about Jews, Sungenis reversed himself.) When bishops actually met privately, I’m sure they were more candid with one another about their concerns. Anyone who knows anything about bishops (or any organization, really) knows this is the common practice.

 

[Luke65]

Also, you’re playing fast and loose with your words, Luke. First, you said that Bishop Rhoades defended a heresy. Now you are saying that he defended a “statement” that was removed from the USCCA. These are two very different things. Your first statement was a very serious (and false) accusation. Your second phrase is somewhat more accurate, although he expressed his reservations even with the original statement.

I choose my words very carefully. Perhaps you missed it:

“Bishop Rhoades did in fact defend the very statement in the Catechism that the U.S. bishops, in an unprecedented move, voted to expunge from our Catechism. But I’m glad to hear that he apparently had a change of heart and decided to vote to remove the heretical statement.”

It was a heretical statement. Bishop Rhoades defended it. It’s being removed. End of story.

 

[Brenda4God]

Hmmm, the sentence you repeated wasn’t the problem. The problem was what you wrote before that. You wrote, “Kevin Rhoades, denied him the imprimatur based on page 131 of the USCCB Catechism, which contained a heresy that Bishop Rhoades defended.”

It’s not true to say that the Bishop defended a heresy. The bishop came right out and said he does not believe that Jewish people have their own covenant of salvation with God. And this was exactly the sticky point with that sentence in the US Catechism. Whether you agree with what the bishop took the sentence to mean is besides the point. The way he took it isn’t a heresy. So it’s not fair to say he defended a heresy. Get it? End of story.

But God bless your heart for sticking up for Mr. Sungenis. It just would be nice if you Sungensians wouldn’t do it so often at everyone else’s expense. I really don’t envy his poor bishop!

 

[Brenda4God]

Hmmm, the sentence you repeated wasn’t the problem. I think the problem was what you wrote before that. You wrote, “Kevin Rhoades, denied him the imprimatur based on page 131 of the USCCB Catechism, which contained a heresy that Bishop Rhoades defended.”

It’s not fair to say that the Bishop defended a heresy. The bishop came right out and said he doesn’t believe that Jewish people have their own covenant of salvation with God. And this was exactly the sticky point with that sentence in the US Catechism. Whether you agree with what the bishop took the sentence to mean is besides the point. The way he took it isn’t a heresy. So it’s not fair to say he defended a heresy. Get it? But he did say he could see why people would get the wrong idea by reading it. I’m sure that’s why he voted to change it. Me? I’m glad it was changed, too. End of story.

But God bless your heart for sticking up for Mr. Sungenis. It just would be nice if you Sungensians wouldn’t do it so often at everyone else’s expense. I really don’t envy his poor bishop!

 

[DavidPalm]

I choose my words very carefully. Perhaps you missed it:

“Bishop Rhoades did in fact defend the very statement in the Catechism that the U.S. bishops, in an unprecedented move, voted to expunge from our Catechism. But I’m glad to hear that he apparently had a change of heart and decided to vote to remove the heretical statement.”

Actually, the sentence you repeated wasn’t the problem. The problem was what you wrote before that. You wrote, “Kevin Rhoades, denied him the imprimatur based on page 131 of the USCCB Catechism, which contained a heresy that Bishop Rhoades defended.” I don’t think you picked your words carefully enough, because there you clearly state that His Excellency defended a heresy. And it is not fair to say that he defended a heresy. The bishop stated clearly that he doesn’t believe that Jewish people have their own covenant of salvation with God. And this was exactly the point in contention with the sentence in the US Catechism. Whether you agree with what the bishop took the sentence to mean is beside the point. The way he took it isn’t a heresy. So it’s not accurate to say, as you did, that he defended a heresy. Hopefully you catch the distinction.

The sentence needed to be changed. He voted to change it. End of story.

 

[killyclogher]

First of all, I’m really happy because I just finished my two-year project of reading the entire New Testament. I know I’m not setting any records, but I feel good about this small accomplishment.

Congratulations! I need to do the same.

Here’s a good book review on Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D:
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/apocalypse-of-st-john-catholic.html

I haven’t read this book but I’ve heard great things about it:

Father H.R. Kramer’s The Book of Destiny published by TAN:
tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/89/

 

[killyclogher]

From the Book Review:

"In turn, the people of the world “worship” the Beast by sacrificing themselves to its cause. In practical terms, for example, they sacrifice their families to divorce and adultery; their babies to abortion; their bodies to drugs, alcohol and pornography; their homes and property to usury and unjust taxes; their souls to godless art and music; their minds to anti-Christian philosophies and sciences, etc. So successful is the campaign of the Second Beast to bring the people to worship the First Beast that, as John says: “and the whole earth followed the Beast with wonder” and “they worshiped the Beast, saying, ‘Who is like the Beast and able to wage war with him?’” (Ap 13:3-4).
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/apocalypse-of-st-john-catholic.html

Read that and then this…
Michael O’ Brien - Obama:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/081103a.html

Interesting.

 

[Brenda4God]

Congratulations! I need to do the same.

Here’s a good book review on Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D:
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/apocalypse-of-st-john-catholic.html

I haven’t read this book but I’ve heard great things about it:

Father H.R. Kramer’s The Book of Destiny published by TAN:
tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/89/

Oh, good heavens. You must not know that review of Mr. Sungenis’ book was written by a person who’s on Mr. Sungenis’ board of directors. No wonder its so glowing!

I’m sorry, but I read that it was turned down for an imprimatur now by two bishops. Mr. Sungenis’ own bishop and the one he said he was sending it to after his own bishop said “no”. So that’s two now. I read there’s a problem with the translation too, I guess Mr. Sungenis never got the cannon law approval for his translation.

I looked at that website for Fr. Kramer’s book. I get a little worried when people start saying that prophecy is talking about our time. So that review didn’t look all that promising to me on his book. But it was just a little blurb, so maybe the book is okay, I don’t know. Don’t you think TAN is sometimes a little on the edge?

 

[Luke65]

Oh, good heavens. You must not know that review of Mr. Sungenis’ book was written by a person who’s on Mr. Sungenis’ board of directors. No wonder its so glowing!

What’s “so glowing!” about that review? Perhaps you could quote it for us.

I’m sorry, but I read that it was turned down for an imprimatur now by two bishops. Mr. Sungenis’ own bishop and the one he said he was sending it to after his own bishop said “no”. So that’s two now.

That’s true, but so what? We’ll look at another book that does have an imprimatur momentarily.

I read there’s a problem with the translation too, I guess Mr. Sungenis never got the cannon law approval for his translation.

False. It says right there in that review that the book uses the RSV translation. Are you sure you actually read it?

I looked at that website for Fr. Kramer’s book. I get a little worried when people start saying that prophecy is talking about our time.

The prophecies are talking about our time - can’t you read the signs? Have you heard the messages from our Lady? Our Lord has a message for us today:

“Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?” (Luke 12:56)

Now, you and David Palm have taken it upon yourselves to turn this thread into yet another Sungenis bashing session. There are whole websites dedicated to just that, as Mr. Palm was generous enough to provide links for. And what is your pretense for this? The imprimatur. But the OP didn’t ask for “Catholic books with an imprimatur”. If he had, I wouldn’t have recommended this book. But since you want to pontificate about imprimaturs, let’s take a look at what our bishops have been happy to give their approval to. Here are some excerpts from a scathing review of the “official” Bible version for U.S. Catholics by Ben Douglass, who happens to be one of Sungenis’ most vocal critics:

Wolf in Calfskin: The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB
It is the thesis of this article that the above papal condemnations apply in spades to one particular biblical society, and one particular biblical version, which are flourishing in our day: namely, The Catholic Biblical Association of America and its New American Bible, or NAB.7 J’accuse: the NAB, in many places, daringly redacts, rearranges, or otherwise mistranslates the sacred text, and it does so in the service of the modernist critical hermeneutic which is revealed in its “perverse” introductions and commentary. These comments repeatedly contradict or call into question the Catholic dogma of the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture8 as also the Catholic dogmas of Christology and Mariology… Indeed, it freely confesses that Scripture is wrong in places and freely disagrees. The NAB charges the Bible with contradiction, concerning which Oecumenius may be quoted as representative of the faith of the whole world: "For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit."10 Yet more, the NAB would have our Lord in ignorance and our Lady in doubt of her faith, which can only eventuate in Catholic readers doubting theirs. This Bible is a danger to the faith of Catholics; it is a near occasion for sin.11

And, tragically, the New American Bible is clothed in a form of godliness far more convincing than anything that a Protestant biblical society could ever hope to weave. Indeed, it possesses all the trappings of a faithfully Catholic Bible. It boasts three imprimaturs,12 an apostolic blessing from Pope Paul VI,13 and the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
…
The purpose of this study is to prevent such loss of souls by exposing the wolf beneath the calfskin of the NAB, and by sounding the alarm against it.15 This Bible does not represent authentic Catholicism. It is not “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3). It is poison. To Catholics I say, “do not trust this Bible”; to non-Catholics, “please do not reject the Catholic Church on its account”; to the bishops, “protect your flock from this thing.”

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - Imprimatur!

Mutilation of the Word of God - Imprimatur!

Criticism of the Jews - Anathema!

“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24)

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? …suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 24:45-51)

Are you listening Bishop Rhoades, et al?

 

[killyclogher]

Well done Luke.

Here’s the “blurb” you talked about. Got me interested enough to buy it:

The Book Of Destiny. An in-depth analysis of the Apocalypse that really makes sense. Proves it is a prophetic history of the Catholic Church. Proceeds chapter by chapter and verse by verse, explaining everything in terms of the language and symbolic meaning of Scripture itself. Gives the keys to understanding the Apocalypse. Shows we are on the verge of dramatic events! A masterpiece! 520 Pp. PB. Impr.
tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/89/

TAN on the edge? lol