Question for X-SDA or knowledgeable Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Annie39
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Annie39

Guest
I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie
 
kristanl said:
In another thread someone had posted one they had done. Here’s the site: litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Commentary+on+Revelation+by+John+Litteral

I havent read it so I’m not sure! I know that when you read revelation you have to take daniel into consideration too, just an FYI.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty good, thanks. But I was looking for a commentary that might contrast the SDAs doctrine that the Catholic Church is the beast with what the Church teaches. I’m thinking that an ex-Adventist or an ex-Protestant who agreed with the SDAs would be someone with knowledge of this. I’m in an on-going discussion with an Adventist minister. Right now we are on the topic of the Sabbath vs. Sunday worship but I have reason to prepare for a discussion regarding this topic for our discussion in the near future.
 
I attended an SDA church with my grandma (she’s supportive of my converison) and they had like an entire “special” on how the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon…and I believed it at first. But then I attended Midnight Mass in 2009 and fell in love with the way Catholics worship and decided to do my own research and I have come to know the SDA way of thinking as false. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church 2000 years ago while Ellen G. White (and some other people who falsely predicted Christ’s second coming, despite the fact that it clearly states that NO ONE knows the exact day, hour etc. Jesus is to return) in the 1800’s. Who do you trust more? 🙂

edit: I noticed you’re actually Catholic! So you probably already know all about what I just said lol sorry, well I can’t offer any detailed info on wha I heard in church but I can tell you they definietely tailored their interpretation to their agenda.
 
Annie39 said:
I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie
Click to expand...
Hmmm I think that I got something wrong. I re-read an article that I had read on this topic and it seems that the Adventists think this particular beast is the USA, not the Catholic Church. I do know however that they do believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ and the Church is the whore of Babylon and if I’m not mistaken they get this from their interpretation of Revelation at least in part. Would anyone like to comment on this?

Thanks
 
Correct, it is believed the second beast= USA. In a nutshell the first beast is the pope, the fatal wound symbolizes the pope’s arrest in the early 1800s (by Napoleon I believe sorry I’m no historian). The second beast represents the USA at a time beyond now, believing someday our government will come under Vatican influence and over time laws will be legislated concerning worship in accordance to Catholic beliefs. Something akin to this occurred recently in Germany, in this case certain laws were already in place regarding Sunday observance but the Catholic and Lutheran church took issue with rulings in recent years relaxing some of these laws and got them reversed dw-world.de/dw/article/0,4953600,00.html With the political influence and power the Pope and the Church has had throughout history it wouldn’t seem a far stretch to believe in this kind of prophetic interpretation.

I have been an SDA my whole life but I don’t concern myself with how exactly the end of times and Christ’s second coming are going to occur and what place (if any) the Catholic church ends up playing in it all. Personally I think it’s easy for too much importance to be placed on our church’s interpretation of Revelation (and Daniel), it isn’t nearly as great as making sure we keep true to God and are not deceived (by the antichrist or anyone) until He finally returns to take us home. I’m not interested in labeling any institution or church as the prophetic “bad guy,” doesn’t really matter who this “antichrist” turns out to be, instead I look forward to His return along with my Catholic friends and everyone else of other faiths.

In comment to mariahlove’s post, I’ve seen and heard comments saying Ellen White predicted Jesus’ coming on a certain date, but this is a misrepresentation. . .true she was part of the Millerite movement of 1844 who looked for Jesus’ return on 10/22/1844, but that was ~20yrs before the start of the SDA church. After that time, after studying the scriptures further she firmly believed (as the bible says) that no one knows the day nor the hour of Christ’s return, that is what the SDA church firmly believes.

Hope this helps answer your question a little Annie39
 
Annie39 said:
I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie
Click to expand...
Hey Annie,

I suggest Robert Sungenis’s “The Apocalypse of St. John.” It’s a great commentary and cites many of the Fathers, etc.

A FREE online commentary on the entire Bible, verse by verse, that is excellent and very doctrinally sound is Haydock’s. Here is the link: haydock1859.tripod.com/
Enjoy!
 
Annie39 said:
Hmmm I think that I got something wrong. I re-read an article that I had read on this topic and it seems that the Adventists think this particular beast is the USA, not the Catholic Church. I do know however that they do believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ and the Church is the whore of Babylon and if I’m not mistaken they get this from their interpretation of Revelation at least in part. Would anyone like to comment on this?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Pure speculation. Stick with the father’s and the teachings of the true Church. A lot of our protestant “brethren” it seems believe such lies about holy mother Church. If that is the case, then they would have to conclude that St. Peter was the first anti-Christ!!
 
Annie39 said:
I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie
Click to expand...
I am neither an ex-Adventist nor a “knowledgeable Catholic”, but hopefully a knowledgeable Anglican will be acceptable.

At the time of the Reformation the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church was frequently mentioned in connection with the Beast of Re 13. This was not only the case with regard to some of the Reformers but among some who remained within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I have done considerable study in the Apocalypse since I felt it necessary to make some sense of this volume of the canon which seemed to have disparate and even bizarre interpretations. I have come to the conclusion that the Beast of Re 13 was not one of the Roman Emperors nor the Pope nor the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, the number of the Beast, 666, was a way to refer to the Beast as being a false trinity (3 X 6). The number 6 was used to signify man himself since man was formed on the 6th day of creation. The Beast is thus the unholy trinity in opposition to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When man makes himself the center of the universe and attempts to determine all matters on his own apart from that which God has set forth, he becomes the Beast.
 
Annie39 said:
I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie
Click to expand...
I am a 52 year old cradle catholic. As a catholic I know that a lot of Revelations has already happen. I also know that we are called to follow Christ in our everyday living. No one knows the hour or the day so we should always be ready.
There has been and are many antichrist but The Antichrist of the end of days has yet to reveal himself. We are not to be fooled. If the catholic church tells us so and so is the Antichrist and they are wrong then that would lead a lot of people to be deceived. “Let no man deceive you”
I believe I have the post that will help you with this question. 👍
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304bt.asp
God’s blessings,
koolmom21
 
The Catholic Church been proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ for 2000 years. How could it be, therefore, the anti-Christ? As Jesus says (Matt 12:25) “a house divided among itself can not stand.” If the Catholic Church were the anti-Christ it would have collapsed long before now.
 
Ther’e’s a section on this in the Catholic Answers Survival Guide book.
 
The word AntiChrist does not appear in the book of Revelation.

I HIGHLY receommend getting a copy of “The Lamb’s Supper - The Mass as Heaven on Earth” by Scott Hahn. I am currently facilitating a class on this book at my parish using the video series hosted by Mike Aquilina. It is an excellent resource for anyone interested in knowing about the book of Revelation and the Holy Mass.
 
Thanks everyone this helps much. The new forum at sbc2rc blog and this one are terrific sources of information. John Calvin I invite you to come home along with your co-religionists. Anglicans and Episcopalians are coming home in droves and we welcome them home with a yahoo!
 
I actually got a little uninvited piece of mail called “National Sunday Law”, which is put out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, or perhaps an organization that adheres to an Adventist theology though isn’t specifically part of the SDA. I don’t know how accurately it reflects the opinion of the SDA church as a whole or if it’s just a splinter. It posits the case that:
  • God ordained Saturday (the 7th day of the week) to be the day of worship
  • The Mark of the Beast is worship on Sundays
  • The Catholic Church changed the day from Saturday to Sunday
  • There’s evidence tying the Pope to the Antichrist, the Church to Whore and Catholicism (or the US) to the Beast.
  • There’s also a laundry of list of alleged historical grievances the Catholic Church committed against so-called “True” Christians.
I suppose the Catholic response (or any other non-SDA response) would be:
  • Sunday worship is mandated by the Old Covenant.
  • The Old Covenant was fulfilled by Christ when He supplanted it with the New Covenant, and hence these mandates are not binding on Christians (as we’re not required to keep kosher or celebrate the Festival of Booths or observe ritual purification following menses or circumcise newborn sons).
  • Sunday is a fitting day of worship because it is the day of the Resurrection.
Catholics, especially, will recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to administer worship. I suppose similar allowances are made by authorities in other congregations - ie, most evangelical communities probably gather on Sundays out of convention but recognize that the pastor has the authority to set what time and where the congregation meets, what hymns are sung, and what parts of Scripture are discussed that day.

Note that the above is used by “National Sunday Law” as ‘evidence’ that Catholicism is demonic - the text considers it a usurping of God’s authority.

It’s an interesting document but I don’t know how well it reflects the SDA church as a whole. It’s also not the best-presented theology.

Aside from a few quotes from early Catholic leaders, very little of the historical or empirical is backed up by sources outside of SDA-related websites. For example, the papal tiara allegedly bears the inscription “Vicarius Filii Dei” as reported by someone who witnessed it during one papal procession in the early 20th century. Discussions of the tiara often regress to a stalemate of “If there’s no photo, you can’t prove it” versus “If there’s no photo you can’t disprove it”. There are also attempts to tie “True” Christianity to heretical movements like the Cathars (who were Gnostics), and references to polemic sources on historical events.

I should also mention that it’s written much like a late-night infomercial - plenty of “But wait, there’s more!” I’m serious. The rest of it is written to frighten, painting a very black picture of the Catholic Church that doesn’t jive with my three decades in it.

Email me, I’d be happy to send it to you if you really want to look at it.
 
John_Calvin said:
Rather, the number of the Beast, 666, was a way to refer to the Beast as being a false trinity (3 X 6). The number 6 was used to signify man himself since man was formed on the 6th day of creation. The Beast is thus the unholy trinity in opposition to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When man makes himself the center of the universe and attempts to determine all matters on his own apart from that which God has set forth, he becomes the Beast.
Click to expand...
Oh, now that’s interesting. I hadn’t taken that interpretation before, but at least on the face it’s valid.

I’ve also heard that some translations hold the number to be 616, which is Greek numerology for Nero, and that the allusion to the Beast was a fear among the late first-century Christian community that Nero would return either supernaturally or in similitude as the next Roman emperor.

The difficulty I have in understanding the Mark is that it is to be borne physically on the head or hand and no one without it may conduct business. If this was meant to be literal, the meaning isn’t clear to me. If it is meant to be symbolic, then we may be better able to understand by delving into contemporary sources who would understand the symbolism better. Either way, this is on my long list of topics to research the Early Fathers for.

It does drive me nuts to see it taken not only literally but as though it would not be understood until today. For example, Hal Lindsay’s argument that the Mark refers to RFID chips that a world government will require all citizens to bear. This reflects Lindsay’s personal paranoia more than anything John had in mind (note also Lindsay’s argument that Gog and Magog refer to Russia and Iran … because the Israelites had run-ins with the Russians, right …).
 
losh14 said:
I actually got a little uninvited piece of mail called “National Sunday Law”, which is put out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, or perhaps an organization that adheres to an Adventist theology though isn’t specifically part of the SDA. I don’t know how accurately it reflects the opinion of the SDA church as a whole or if it’s just a splinter. It posits the case that:
  • God ordained Saturday (the 7th day of the week) to be the day of worship
  • The Mark of the Beast is worship on Sundays
  • The Catholic Church changed the day from Saturday to Sunday
  • There’s evidence tying the Pope to the Antichrist, the Church to Whore and Catholicism (or the US) to the Beast.
  • There’s also a laundry of list of alleged historical grievances the Catholic Church committed against so-called “True” Christians.
I suppose the Catholic response (or any other non-SDA response) would be:
  • Sunday worship is mandated by the Old Covenant.
  • The Old Covenant was fulfilled by Christ when He supplanted it with the New Covenant, and hence these mandates are not binding on Christians (as we’re not required to keep kosher or celebrate the Festival of Booths or observe ritual purification following menses or circumcise newborn sons).
  • Sunday is a fitting day of worship because it is the day of the Resurrection.
Catholics, especially, will recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to administer worship. I suppose similar allowances are made by authorities in other congregations - ie, most evangelical communities probably gather on Sundays out of convention but recognize that the pastor has the authority to set what time and where the congregation meets, what hymns are sung, and what parts of Scripture are discussed that day.

Note that the above is used by “National Sunday Law” as ‘evidence’ that Catholicism is demonic - the text considers it a usurping of God’s authority.

It’s an interesting document but I don’t know how well it reflects the SDA church as a whole. It’s also not the best-presented theology.

Aside from a few quotes from early Catholic leaders, very little of the historical or empirical is backed up by sources outside of SDA-related websites. For example, the papal tiara allegedly bears the inscription “Vicarius Filii Dei” as reported by someone who witnessed it during one papal procession in the early 20th century. Discussions of the tiara often regress to a stalemate of “If there’s no photo, you can’t prove it” versus “If there’s no photo you can’t disprove it”. There are also attempts to tie “True” Christianity to heretical movements like the Cathars (who were Gnostics), and references to polemic sources on historical events.

I should also mention that it’s written much like a late-night infomercial - plenty of “But wait, there’s more!” I’m serious. The rest of it is written to frighten, painting a very black picture of the Catholic Church that doesn’t jive with my three decades in it.

Email me, I’d be happy to send it to you if you really want to look at it.
Click to expand...
I would add that centuries after the Church changed Saturday Sabbath observance to Sunday (which she did under the authority and inspiration of the Spirit during the times of the apostles) she canonized the same Bible from which they are reading and interpreting and drawing their own private conclusions (Councils of Hippo and Carthage). Why do they trust the Church enough to canonize Scripture infallibly but yet do not accept something that the very apostles themselves changed as part of the New Covenant? Also a great question to ask is how old is their denomination. We must remember that in the last days many will rise and say “here is Christ” but we are not to look elsewhere. There are currently tens of thousands of protestant denominations all claiming to teach the truth about Christ and the Bible. They claim, here is the Christ; we have him. Yet all they have is their own private interpretations with no authority outside of that. The Catholic Church alone traces her roots back to Christ and the apostles, and Christ promised that against this Church, the gates of hell would not prevail. In order to accomplish this feat, he gave to Peter, the first pope, the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and promised him that whatsoever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. This apostolic authority has been handed down for 2000 years as attested universally by the early Church fathers. If one humbly and truly begs for light from heaven, I truly believe that he will discover this one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
 
VMacKenzie said:
In comment to mariahlove’s post, I’ve seen and heard comments saying Ellen White predicted Jesus’ coming on a certain date, but this is a misrepresentation. . .true she was part of the Millerite movement of 1844 who looked for Jesus’ return on 10/22/1844, but that was ~20yrs before the start of the SDA church. After that time, after studying the scriptures further she firmly believed (as the bible says) that no one knows the day nor the hour of Christ’s return, that is what the SDA church firmly believes.

Hope this helps answer your question a little Annie39
Click to expand...
Thanks for this bit! This is very helpful!
John_Calvin said:
I am neither an ex-Adventist nor a “knowledgeable Catholic”, but hopefully a knowledgeable Anglican will be acceptable.

At the time of the Reformation the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church was frequently mentioned in connection with the Beast of Re 13. This was not only the case with regard to some of the Reformers but among some who remained within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I have done considerable study in the Apocalypse since I felt it necessary to make some sense of this volume of the canon which seemed to have disparate and even bizarre interpretations. I have come to the conclusion that the Beast of Re 13 was not one of the Roman Emperors nor the Pope nor the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, the number of the Beast, 666, was a way to refer to the Beast as being a false trinity (3 X 6). The number 6 was used to signify man himself since man was formed on the 6th day of creation. The Beast is thus the unholy trinity in opposition to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When man makes himself the center of the universe and attempts to determine all matters on his own apart from that which God has set forth, he becomes the Beast.
Click to expand...
I rather like that. Good work.
losh14 said:
The difficulty I have in understanding the Mark is that it is to be borne physically on the head or hand and no one without it may conduct business. If this was meant to be literal, the meaning isn’t clear to me. If it is meant to be symbolic, then we may be better able to understand by delving into contemporary sources who would understand the symbolism better. Either way, this is on my long list of topics to research the Early Fathers for.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard an interpretation that the Mark, right hand or head, may be a cell phone…

And, to the OP, I know that there was an ex-SDA on these forums not too long ago…perhaps in the summer. I don’t know if she still posts, though…
 
This is a response to Annie—You ask if the “Catholic Church is the beast”? If what you ask is true then Jesus is a liar and if Jesus is a liar then our faith is forfeit! The Catholic Church is NOT–I repeat–is NOT the BEAST! The “beast” has ten horns and seven heads. According to the foot notes in my bible the beast is ancient Rome with Nero and the other rulers in power.
If you want to equate it today, you can say the beast is the Free Masonic Order, which is a Satanic power in the world. Our lady calls Communism the “red dragon” and the Free Masonic Order, “the Black Beast” The beast in my opinion is any group or groups of people who are against God and the Free Masonic Order fits the definition. There are ten Satanic Commandment listed in a little town in Georgia. You might want to.look up “The Georgia Guide Stones” in your computer. They exist in Elbert, Ga.
I hope I have been of some help to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top