Studies In Official Catholic Prophecy

[Zooey]

Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways. How can you say all of this is now optional for Catholics?

I have read and re-read this document the last few days; but there are many inconsistencies. How much more “public” could the Fatima Secret get?

Let me take a shot at this.
Catholics mean something different from us Protestants when they talk about “public revelation” vs “private revelation”. Public does NOT mean that it is well known, published in the papers, etc. Public refers to what was given to the apostles back in their own day. The Scriptures. The teachings of Christ. The “deposit of faith”.

Private revelations may still occur, according to the CC, but no one is required to believe them. Now, Fatima is a private revelation ( something given to a person or persons in the Catholic Church) since the time of Christ. A lot of people believe in it. It is like Lourdes, like Guadelupe, like lots of others that:blush: escape my Methodist brain at the moment. Catholics may believe in them, or they may choose not to. The Catholic Church has said that **some **private revelations are “worthy of belief”, which, as I understand it, means that they do not contradict any doctrines of the Church.
So, for example, when we talk about Fatima, the CC says, it is worthy of belief: It is OK to believe in it. Pope John Paul 2 clearly believed in Fatima.
But it is also perfectly possible to be a Catholic in good standing, without believing in Fatima or any other Private Revelation. Unlike, say, announcing that you were told in a vision to dump James & Revelation from the Bible. That is tampering w/Public Revelation, & it brands itself as false on the face of it.

Now, I happen to have very mixed feelings about Fatima. (I am, as I say, Methodist, but follow me). That is OK. It is fine for a Catholic to say, that’s fine, I’m glad for those who believe it having their faith strengthened, but I don’t buy any of it. Or, I believe part, but not all of it. (I am inclined to this POV).
I believe quite unreservedly, on the other hand, in Guadelupe. (The end of Aztec human sacrifice? Thousands upon thousands of new Christians from the ranks of said Aztecs? What can it be, if not a miracle from God??

So, Catholic could go right along with me on this, & believe as I do, with no problem. But he can’t accept the Book of Mormon, nor can he deny the inspiration of the Bible. The former, because it came after the close of Public Revelation (& contradicts it!) , and the latter, because it is Public Revelation.

HTH!!

 

[Zooey]

The Fatima Secret seems like prophecy because it is connected to the second coming, to God’s judgment therein, and to Mary’s alleged role in last day events. it does not seem like it would fit with my current understandings of your explanations about what “revelation” is from the Catholic perspective.

Well…Again, I think we have a “failure to communicate”. Part of Fatima may refer to the 2nd coming, but–and this can be hard to see-- That really doesn’t matter. Not in regard to whether this is to be accepted or not.
It’s a possible scenario. It may refer to other matter than to the 2nd coming. It may be, (and I incline to this view), that when Fatima calls for praying, & especially the rosary, that this is a genuine message, and that the rest is imagination on the part of the youngsters…Although, I have to say, I am deeply impressed by their insistence that they were being truthful. (Although… this may only mean that they believed what they said, not that this is what God wants us to get out of it).
But the public revelation which the CC requires assent to, in all its members, is the revelation given to the apostles. When the last one died (John the Revelator, aka John the Beloved), public revelation ended. Everything else is optional.
Now, many Catholics accept, by faith, that since so many popes (& others) accept Fatima in toto, that it is true. But some don’t. And–as I have said–that is perfectly OK. It’s a legitimate point of view for a devout & orthodox Catholic to take, that s/he doesn’t believe in any of the Marian apparitions…
Now, I think that those who do that, will be missing out on some really inspirational stuff, by so doing… But then, I’m just the Friendly Neighborhhod Methodist, & so my opinion is worth considerably less than the perennial 2 cents…

 

[mercygate]

But then, I’m just the Friendly Neighborhhod Methodist, & so my opinion is worth considerably less than the perennial 2 cents…

On the contrary. The fact that a dispassionate non-Catholic can state this so clearly means that somwhere along the line it MUST be “understandable.” Thank you (again) for your (as always) lucid delineation of the Catholic position. I would say that Zooey’s :twocents: is usually worth a million bucks.

 

[exoflare]

Thanks everyone who is taking the time here. I appreciate the answers.

Going by the last two posts here; and a few others, I have sensed a bit of either confusion or lack of uniformity in understanding the “private” or “public” nature of “revelation” amongst Catholics.

With this post; I would like to clarify WHEN public revelations have allegedly ceased. Some say it was with John The Baptist, some say with John the Revelator, some just say “with the New Testament.”

Are there any quotes you can offer from the Catechism or other official Catholic documents spell this out exactly, and include some kind of references or documentation as to the reasoning?

I’m not sure of the exact reasoning used at the moment, or where this is written… but I do know what the Church teaches about this. All public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (John).

 

[SDA2RC]

With this post; I would like to clarify WHEN public revelations have allegedly ceased. Some say it was with John The Baptist, some say with John the Revelator, some just say “with the New Testament.”

Saint John the Revelator, and the end of the NT are the same thing, as John was the last writer of the NT… so there shouldnt be any confusion there. I am guessing that when the previous poster said John the Baptist he either mistyped or was mistaken. WE believe that public revelation ended with the close of the NT Canon, i.e. John.

Are there any quotes you can offer from the Catechism or other official Catholic documents spell this out exactly, and include some kind of references or documentation as to the reasoning?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Also, does Catholic literature explain in detail the difference between “prophecy” and “revelation?”

You are welcome to read the Catholic Encyclopedia on both… here is an excerpt:
Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truthGod to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.
Prophecy: As the term is used in mystical theology, it applies both to the prophecies of canonical Scripture and to private prophecies. Understood in its strict sense, it means the foreknowledge of future events, though it may sometimes apply to past events of which there is no memory, and to present hidden things which cannot be known by the natural light of reason. St. Paul, speaking of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14, does not confine its meaning to predictions of future events, but includes under it Divine inspirations concerning what is secret, whether future or not. As, however, the manifestation of hidden present mysteries or past events comes under revelation, we have here to understand by prophecy what is in its strict and proper sense, namely the revelation of future events. Prophecy consists in knowledge and in the manifestation of what is known. The knowledge must be supernatural and infused by God because it concerns things beyond the natural power of createdknowledge must be manifested either by words or signs, because the gift of prophecy is given primarily for the good of others, and hence needs to be manifested. It is a Divine light by which God reveals things concerning the unknown future and by which these things are in some way represented to the mind of the prophet, whose duty it is to manifest them to others.

he Fatima Secret seems like prophecy because it is connected to the second coming, to God’s judgment therein, and to Mary’s alleged role in last day events. it does not seem like it would fit with my current understandings of your explanations about what “revelation” is from the Catholic perspective.

As you read the above explanations, you should be able to see how the Fatima Message (not just secrets) can be seen as both revelation and prophecy.

Hope this helps!

 

[mark_a]

Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways. How can you say all of this is now optional for Catholics?

Just like Maria, you are “trying to catch a cloud and pin it down”.

 

[Protestant101]

You are correct: this appears to show an overlap between prophecy and revelation. At Fatima, God may be revealing truth through our Lady, viia the visionaries as “prophets” but anything we need to know for our salvation is contained in the apostolic teaching. I’m not sure that makes a difference in terms of this discussion, but it’s a nice distinction that we definitely should keep in mind.

Did I just muddy the water here? Or contribute verbiage without clarifying anything?

No. You didn’t “muddy the waters” at all. It is good to be able to discuss civily with you.

As a Protestant, I have grown to think how that all that we really need to know for our salvation is contained in the Bible; and so that would be one point of difference in how we each see private or public revelation.

I find it very curious how the Catholic Church makes the distinction of it being the true Church or the Mother Church; yet they seem to be so vague on Bible prophecy, saying that much of it is not important to our salvation. I have actually heard some Protestants say this too, likely because many are scared to talk about it publicly for fear of being accused of “hatred” and the like.

But there are some things that could be talked about in regards to Bible prophecy and The Catholic Church without involving ourselves in “hatred” or in hateful postings.

For eg., I have found very little in Catholic literature on the mark of the beast mentioned in Rev.14 and other places:

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Some prophecy seems to have a direct reference to our salvation, and I have wondered why Catholics and their literature seems to steer clear of verses like this?

 

[exoflare]

Some prophecy seems to have a direct reference to our salvation, and I have wondered why Catholics and their literature seems to steer clear of verses like this?

How do verses like this have any sort of “direct reference” to our salvation?

 

[Zooey]

No. You didn’t “muddy the waters” at all. It is good to be able to discuss civily with you.

As a Protestant, I have grown to think how that all that we really need to know for our salvation is contained in the Bible; and so that would be one point of difference in how we each see private or public revelation.

I find it very curious how the Catholic Church makes the distinction of it being the true Church or the Mother Church; yet they seem to be so vague on Bible prophecy, saying that much of it is not important to our salvation. I have actually heard some Protestants say this too, likely because many are scared to talk about it publicly for fear of being accused of “hatred” and the like.

But there are some things that could be talked about in regards to Bible prophecy and The Catholic Church without involving ourselves in “hatred” or in hateful postings.

For eg., I have found very little in Catholic literature on the mark of the beast mentioned in Rev.14 and other places:

Some prophecy seems to have a direct reference to our salvation, and I have wondered why Catholics and their literature seems to steer clear of verses like this?

How do verses like this have any sort of “direct reference” to our salvation?

You just took the words out of my mouth (OK, my keyboard).

I can’t see, frankly, how it pertains to our salvation in the least.

Chritians have been persecuted since the beginning; hence, the words of our Lord, that “the servant is not better than the Master”. The stories of the sufferings of the early Christian martyrs, right up to those brave men, women, & children who may be suffering, yes, dying, for their faith right now, in some parts of the world…This is a reminder to “take up [our] cross and follow” in the footsteps of the Saviour.
But to imagine that our salvation depends on how we interpret a singular verse, wrenched from its context??? Not as far as I can see. (And, if I did live in Communist China, or in one of the Muslim countries, I would have less time to worry about such things, and more urgency, I daresay, to be ready to prepare myself to die.)
The more things change, you see, the more they stay the same…

That’s why you won’t find a lot of interest in the varied theories about eschatology. When you have been, as I have been, lying on a hospital bed, awaiting the surgeons to repair your heart, so that you don’t die, well…now. Then. In April of 2004, to be precise.

When you have been there, I say, the **last thing in your mind **is going to be:shrug: premillennial vs:shrug: post-tribulational vs preterist whatever. All you want, is to be sure of your peace with the Creator of the earth, and with Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
You will **pray more, & worry less about things that are, as had been said, “none of our business”.

 

[Protestant101]

You just took the words out of my mouth (OK, my keyboard).

I can’t see, frankly, how it pertains to our salvation in the least.

Chritians have been persecuted since the beginning; hence, the words of our Lord, that “the servant is not better than the Master”. The stories of the sufferings of the early Christian martyrs, right up to those brave men, women, & children who may be suffering, yes, dying, for their faith right now, in some parts of the world…This is a reminder to “take up [our] cross and follow” in the footsteps of the Saviour.
But to imagine that our salvation depends on how we interpret a singular verse, wrenched from its context??? Not as far as I can see. (And, if I did live in Communist China, or in one of the Muslim countries, I would have less time to worry about such things, and more urgency, I daresay, to be ready to prepare myself to die.)
The more things change, you see, the more they stay the same…

That’s why you won’t find a lot of interest in the varied theories about eschatology. When you have been, as I have been, lying on a hospital bed, awaiting the surgeons to repair your heart, so that you don’t die, well…now. Then. In April of 2004, to be precise.

When you have been there, I say, the **last thing in your mind is going to be:shrug: premillennial vs:shrug: post-tribulational vs preterist whatever. All you want, is to be sure of your peace with the Creator of the earth, and with Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
You will pray more, & worry less about things that are, as had been said, “none of our business”.

I have been where you were, several times. But it wasn’t my heart. You make a good point there.

I would add that each doctrine in the Bible is essential; they are not optional; but individuals may only need one. I have said to my friends for years that when I looked after dying people when I was in nursing; I did not rush to the bedside of a dying man/woman and tell them about “the mark of the beast” or any other doctrine. Another doctrine/verse would be much more essential at the time. Incidentally, your comment about dying and not wondering about pre-mil or post-mil, etc., made me reflect upon another point.

I had gone to a lady’s house thinking that we were going to study the mark of the beast and other prophetic themes. However, our appointment had to be delayed so we set another day and when I showed up, she answered the door in tears. She had just lost her two little girls in a car accident; and was very distraught that she would never see them again. I chose , of course to sidetrack our planned study, and instead, I read to her out of the passage in 1 Thes.4:13-18 which talks about the resurrection, and how jesus will come again, and we will see our loved ones again. And you are right - pre or post trib did not matter here. What mattered was seeing her loved ones again. But this does illustrate that each doctrine that is in the Bible is to specifically address a personal need of some kind that people typically have…

When we think of the mark of the beast; the text says not to receive it; or you will be destroyed, “destroyed with fire and brimstone” Rev.14:10); and so in this context, it does have direct bearing on our salvation. A need that we all have is to not receive this “mark.”

What do Catholics teach that this “mark” is?

 

[mercygate]

I would add that each doctrine in the Bible is essential; they are not optional; but individuals may only need one. I have said to my friends for years that when I looked after dying people when I was in nursing; I did not rush to the bedside of a dying man/woman and tell them about “the mark of the beast” or any other doctrine. Another doctrine/verse would be much more essential at the time. Incidentally, your comment about dying and not wondering about pre-mil or post-mil, etc., made me reflect upon another point.

I had gone to a lady’s house thinking that we were going to study the mark of the beast and other prophetic themes. However, our appointment had to be delayed so we set another day and when I showed up, she answered the door in tears. She had just lost her two little girls in a car accident; and was very distraught that she would never see them again. I chose , of course to sidetrack our planned study, and instead, I read to her out of the passage in 1 Thes.4:13-18 which talks about the resurrection, and how jesus will come again, and we will see our loved ones again. And you are right - pre or post trib did not matter here. What mattered was seeing her loved ones again. But this does illustrate that each doctrine that is in the Bible is to specifically address a personal need of some kind that people typically have…

When we think of the mark of the beast; the text says not to receive it; or you will be destroyed, “destroyed with fire and brimstone” Rev.14:10); and so in this context, it does have direct bearing on our salvation. A need that we all have is to not receive this “mark.”

What do Catholics teach that this “mark” is?

I am way out of my area of expertise with this subject but typically, in Catholic circles, when something is as obscure as this, it is generally not taken with the level of urgency that attaches to things like following Christ. If you’re minding your business and living in the Heart of Jesus, taking up your cross daily, following him, keeping his commandments, then ain’t no beast no how gonna put no mark on you!

My uneducated speculation would be that the mark of the beast is likely a local, time-related, preterist thing that would have been understood by the audience to whom Revelation was written but not necessarily by us. As my Evangelical friends are won’t to say: the Bible is not written TO you but it is written FOR you. That puts a different complexion on the urgency of things like this. They say “the main things are the plain things” – and this is not a plain thing. If it’s THAT hard to figure out, then it can’t be a needful thing for all Christians to understand.

 

[Protestant101]

I am way out of my area of expertise with this subject but typically, in Catholic circles, when something is as obscure as this, it is generally not taken with the level of urgency that attaches to things like following Christ. If you’re minding your business and living in the Heart of Jesus, taking up your cross daily, following him, keeping his commandments, then ain’t no beast no how gonna put no mark on you!

My uneducated speculation would be that the mark of the beast is likely a local, time-related, preterist thing that would have been understood by the audience to whom Revelation was written but not necessarily by us. As my Evangelical friends are won’t to say: the Bible is not written TO you but it is written FOR you. That puts a different complexion on the urgency of things like this. They say “the main things are the plain things” – and this is not a plain thing. If it’s THAT hard to figure out, then it can’t be a needful thing for all Christians to understand.

You make some excellent points here; and I really support your emphasis on minding our own business, and living close to Christ.

The Bible is written both to us and for us. By minding our own business, we mind the business of others. It is our duty to join God in warning the world to not receive this “mark” whatever it is. Why would God tell us not to receive something if it is “impossible” to know what it is; or, if it is so “unimportant?”

I am not interested in any debate on what the mark is; only on examining aspects of Catholic prophecy that would refute the “lies” of Protestants.

Surely if something is in the Bible it is important? By receiving this “mark” of the beast, the Bible says we will be destroyed. I am actually surprised to learn that Catholics do not have any definitive teachings on this. It seems quite connected to our salvation somehow.

There are non-official Catholic books and articles that examine this topic in depth; but it gets so confusing when the “official” explanation excuses it all away as “private” revelation; which I don’t believe is Biblical. Revelation is from God to us, period. No privacy code involved there at all. I wish Catholics would be upfront with this topic.

 

[Ella]

I have no contribution except to say, “What a great thread”. Thanks to everyone posting in it.

 

[Zooey]

Well, but David, I think that, if we are living close to Christ, & doing everything we can to live as Christians, that’s all we can do. I’m not totally convinced that this “mark” is necessarily a mark as in a scar/tattoo/whatever. It seems to me, that refusing to follow Christ “marks” a person as not being one of His…
There is no physical mark on me, from the waters of baptism. But I was spiritually marked, in my soul, as a Christian, when I was baptized. In the same way, someone might have a “mark” of hatred, or bitterness, or unrepented sin, which God can see. Its not something you can read or see physically; its something lacking inside the person’s heart & soul.
If we are spending time with God, trying to do all we can to live as befits someone who wears the name of the Saviour, that’s what we have to do. That’s what He asks of us…In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about how people will be judged, & it is by how we have lived in this world. Not on some fearfulness of some “mark” that is never even established as a physical sign…

 

[Protestant101]

Well, but David, I think that, if we are living close to Christ, & doing everything we can to live as Christians, that’s all we can do. I’m not totally convinced that this “mark” is necessarily a mark as in a scar/tattoo/whatever. It seems to me, that refusing to follow Christ “marks” a person as not being one of His…
There is no physical mark on me, from the waters of baptism. But I was spiritually marked, in my soul, as a Christian, when I was baptized. In the same way, someone might have a “mark” of hatred, or bitterness, or unrepented sin, which God can see. Its not something you can read or see physically; its something lacking inside the person’s heart & soul.
If we are spending time with God, trying to do all we can to live as befits someone who wears the name of the Saviour, that’s what we have to do. That’s what He asks of us…In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about how people will be judged, & it is by how we have lived in this world. Not on some fearfulness of some “mark” that is never even established as a physical sign…

Hey Zooey

You are the first Catholic to give me a sensible answer to this question; and I do agree with you about the “mark” not being a physical one, such as a tattoo or a computer chip embedded behind the ear, etc., etc. The mark cannot possibly be a strictly physical one, and this is one of the reasons Adventists officially teach that not only Adventists will be saved, and that there are true Christians in other denominations. “Wearing the name of the Savior” perfectly describes a Christian.

My understanding of prophecy simply adds that the mark of the beast question tells us what to also look for in those who would wear “the mark of the beast;” or who would “wear the name of Satan” and openly adopt anything that is a symbol of his evil authority.

There is the mark of God, and the mark of the beast. Official Catholic teachings on prophecy, would, I hope, go this far atleast.

There are other items of prophecy and questions about the official Catholic teachings thereof, but I am out of time for a while, and will be going on vacation. I will be looking forward to coming back and continuing this study.

 

[mercygate]

You make some excellent points here; and I really support your emphasis on minding our own business, and living close to Christ.

The Bible is written both to us and for us. By minding our own business, we mind the business of others. It is our duty to join God in warning the world to not receive this “mark” whatever it is. Why would God tell us not to receive something if it is “impossible” to know what it is; or, if it is so “unimportant?”

I am not interested in any debate on what the mark is; only on examining aspects of Catholic prophecy that would refute the “lies” of Protestants.

Surely if something is in the Bible it is important? By receiving this “mark” of the beast, the Bible says we will be destroyed. I am actually surprised to learn that Catholics do not have any definitive teachings on this. It seems quite connected to our salvation somehow.

There are non-official Catholic books and articles that examine this topic in depth; but it gets so confusing when the “official” explanation excuses it all away as “private” revelation; which I don’t believe is Biblical. Revelation is from God to us, period. No privacy code involved there at all. I wish Catholics would be upfront with this topic.

Nothing in Scripture is “private revelation” so I don’t quite see where you are going with this. As for the mark of the Beast, baptized Christians are sealed for Jesus Christ and cannot be claimed or “marked” by anything else.

You are correct: minding our own business IS very much to preach the Gospel.

As for the objection you make to our Evangelical brethren’s claim that the Bible is wirtten FOR us but not TO us, I think they are right about this in that specific communities and circumstances prompted specific writings that have merit beyond their own time and place (wirtten for us) but every specific detail does not necessarily apply point-for-point to us as it did to the original audience. See the Catechism on the four senses of Scripture. Catholics are literal in their reading of Scripture but not literalistic.

 

[Protestant101]

Nothing in Scripture is “private revelation” so I don’t quite see where you are going with this. As for the mark of the Beast, baptized Christians are sealed for Jesus Christ and cannot be claimed or “marked” by anything else.

Rev 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation;

Agreed; this text would not be classed, by Catholics as “private revelation.” It is Scripture, and therefore not in the same class. What I mean by my comments above re how in my experiences, Catholics have tended to explain away prophecies like this as private revelation; is just that.

Catholics here are telling me this text is not important; yet the text says if anyone receives this mark of the beast; “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation” How come that is not important? How would that NOT be related to our being saved?

Catholics seem to be telling me that this text is private revelation, in the general form that Catholic apologists tend to comment on it; yet in the same breath, saying that nothing in the Bible is “private revelation.”

For eg, in one Catholic book I have by one Edward Connor, he examines Bible prophecy from what he calls a Catholic perspective. The book is called “Prophecy For Today.” If I were to tell you anything that he says in his book about the anti-Christ, you would likely end up saying how it is “just” private" revelation, and not necesarry to believe. Yet all the texts he quotes are in the Bible.

Connor calls his book “A summary of the Catholic Tradition Concerning The End Of Time Era.”

Is the Catholic understanding of end time prophecy just in the form of Tradition? Does this then mean that Tradition, when it’s prophecy, is private revelation?

I think that the Catholic position on prophecy leaves a lot of questions.

 

[Techno2000]

Agreed; this text would not be classed, by Catholics as “private revelation.” It is Scripture, and therefore not in the same class. What I mean by my comments above re how in my experiences, Catholics have tended to explain away prophecies like this as private revelation; is just that.

Catholics here are telling me this text is not important; yet the text says if anyone receives this mark of the beast; “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation” How come that is not important? How would that NOT be related to our being saved?

Catholics seem to be telling me that this text is private revelation, in the general form that Catholic apologists tend to comment on it; yet in the same breath, saying that nothing in the Bible is “private revelation.”

For eg, in one Catholic book I have by one Edward Connor, he examines Bible prophecy from what he calls a Catholic perspective. The book is called “Prophecy For Today.” If I were to tell you anything that he says in his book about the anti-Christ, you would likely end up saying how it is “just” private" revelation, and not necesarry to believe. Yet all the texts he quotes are in the Bible.

Connor calls his book “A summary of the Catholic Tradition Concerning The End Of Time Era.”

Is the Catholic understanding of end time prophecy just in the form of Tradition? Does this then mean that Tradition, when it’s prophecy, is private revelation?

I think that the Catholic position on prophecy leaves a lot of questions.

Here is some private revelation concerning the “Mark of the Beast” this site has not been approved or disapproved by the Church.
johnleary.com/
johnleary.com/archives.htm

 

[mercygate]

I think that the Catholic position on prophecy leaves a lot of questions.

Catholic thinking tends to carve things in stone regarding the interpretation of Scripture as little as possible. End time speculations are something the Lord himself has told us are not fruitful. Not even the Son knows.

Our job is to preach the Gospel until he comes. If we do that, and if people come to Jesus, then the details of His coming will “in the twinkling of an eye” (to quote Paul) all be made clear.

A great deal in Revelation is pure preterist, expressed in the apocalyptic form. Very likely, even the ‘mark of the beast.’

You seem to be confusing public revelation (Scripture) with the interpretation of scripture, which may or may not be divinely inspired or privately revealed. J. Vernon McGee (d. 1988), the Fundamentalist readio evangelist, who believed in the Rapture, confided that it didn’t matter a whit what he thought about all of that because the Lord had told us it was none of our business.

 

[Protestant101]

Catholic thinking tends to carve things in stone regarding the interpretation of Scripture as little as possible. End time speculations are something the Lord himself has told us are not fruitful. Not even the Son knows.

Our job is to preach the Gospel until he comes. If we do that, and if people come to Jesus, then the details of His coming will “in the twinkling of an eye” (to quote Paul) all be made clear.

A great deal in Revelation is pure preterist, expressed in the apocalyptic form. Very likely, even the ‘mark of the beast.’

You seem to be confusing public revelation (Scripture) with the interpretation of scripture, which may or may not be divinely inspired or privately revealed. J. Vernon McGee (d. 1988), the Fundamentalist readio evangelist, who believed in the Rapture, confided that it didn’t matter a whit what he thought about all of that because the Lord had told us it was none of our business.

I guess this is one point I don’t understand at all; the supposition that passages such as Rev.13, or 16, and their so called “interpretation” are mere “end time speculations.” It cannot be possible that the Scriptures, on this point would be “speculation.”

Until I had studied it a bit; I did not realize that the Book of Revelation was largely a book of quotes. Certainly, Revelation is a much different book than any of the others in the Bible; for it contains the prophetic history for the Church of all ages.

And, out of all the 404 verses in Revelation, it looks like 276 of them are either directly quoted, or somehow paraphrased from the Old Testament Scriptures. This is not a matter of “interpretation.” I don’t know how anyone could properly understand the New Testament, especially books like Revelation, if they don’t also have a close knowledge of the Old Testament.

For eg.,if we were to talk about Rev. 16 with the passage about “three unclean spirits,” there is a lot of confusion, in general, about all of John’s apocalyptic beasts and symbolic horsemen. So-called New Testament Churches today, who view the Old Testament as figments of the “out-dated” past, as fulfillments of antiquated beliefs; would find no current-day relevance with John’s writings in the book of Revelation.

Wasn’t it Paul who wrote: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.?” (2 Tim.3:16). Since the New Testament had not yet been written when Paul said this; we can be very certain that he was referring to the Old Testament scriptures.

“For, whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Rom.15:4).

Such texts certainly establish how that the composite prophecies in the book of Revelation are especially applicable to our current day and age, and that they were definitely divinely inspired for our “doctrine,” our “learning,” our “instruction in righteousness.”

Just like the book of Genesis explains for us the beginning of the great controversy between Christ and Satan - between good and evil; this last book of the Bible describes for us the closing of this terrible conflict. This makes Revelation one of the most important books in the Bible. It describes the kind of people God will accept in heaven; and how we can become over-comers, by “the blood of the Lamb.” (see 12:11). Revelation also warns against the final assaults which Satan will launch against God’s people, as the battle reaches it’s climax.

Given this great importance for the book of Revelation; it would stand to reason that the devil hates this book; for it exposes his origins, his plans and devices, his doctrines; and his final destiny.

It would also follow here then, that we can expect Satan to attack any or all of these prophecies which expose his deceptive plans and purposes.

We “preach the gospel till Jesus comes,” by preaching the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation:

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having **the everlasting gospel **to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,