The Church's Ultimate Trial

[Filius99993]

Instead of all this fancy talk; why not just show us where in Catholic writings we have some clear, decisive views of Bible prophecy? If you want to use Apocrypha; then fine; but I will still compare it to the Bible; and BTW I don’t “lack” those apocryphal books at all. I have a copy of them too and I know what they say, and what they don’t say. if I am wrong re what I have said here about the Catholic view on prophecy; just show us where.

You’re assuming that your denomination is the only one fit to interpret the Bible, which is not the case. Not only that, but there is NOWHERE in the Bible that says that Christians should go by the Bible alone. Catholics go by the Word of God alone, but the word of God isn’t limited to the Bible. If it were, then that would make sola scritpura Protestants into Deists, since it would be claiming that God just left and has nothing to say anymore… You’re not a deist, are you?

 

[garysibio]

You’re assuming that your denomination is the only one fit to interpret the Bible, which is not the case. Not only that, but there is NOWHERE in the Bible that says that Christians should go by the Bible alone. Catholics go by the Word of God alone, but the word of God isn’t limited to the Bible. If it were, then that would make sola scritpura Protestants into Deists, since it would be claiming that God just left and has nothing to say anymore… You’re not a deist, are you?

To be fair, sola scriptura doesn’t make a a person a Deist. Following that logic you would also have to say that Catholics are Deists because we believe that public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle.

While I have problems with a lot of Protestant theology, they are certainly not Deists. A Deist would never pray. Why would you pray to a God who is disinterested? For all their faults, not praying is not one of them.

Gary

 

[Franciscan]

You’re assuming that your denomination is the only one fit to interpret the Bible, which is not the case. Not only that, but there is NOWHERE in the Bible that says that Christians should go by the Bible alone. Catholics go by the Word of God alone, but the word of God isn’t limited to the Bible. If it were, then that would make sola scritpura Protestants into Deists, since it would be claiming that God just left and has nothing to say anymore… You’re not a deist, are you?

Wow. that’s one of the best arguments against sola scriptura i have ever heard. Nice!

 

[Filius99993]

To be fair, sola scriptura doesn’t make a a person a Deist. Following that logic you would also have to say that Catholics are Deists because we believe that public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle.

While I have problems with a lot of Protestant theology, they are certainly not Deists. A Deist would never pray. Why would you pray to a God who is disinterested? For all their faults, not praying is not one of them.

Gary

We also believe that the word of God is living. Protestants believe it is absolute, and that the Bible is the only reliable source. And it’s not. That’s what I was trying to get at.

Neither God, nor His Word, is dead.

 

[Protestant101]

A thief breaking in to places is a surprise to EVERYONE - unless he’s an extremely inept, loudmouthed and unlikely-to-be-successful thief who seriously wants either to be betrayed or caught in the act. No thief worth their salt would reveal much about their plans even to their closest accomplices. That’s why Jesus said EVEN HE didn’t know when - that’s how close the Father is holding His cards to His chest.

The message is loud and clear - don’t bother seeking knowledge that is quite frankly none of your or my business and in any event is beyond your or my or any of our feeble powers to divine.

Quite simply Catholics don’t care because our faith emphasises us being prepared at ALL times to meet the judgement. Perhaps yours doesn’t? Frankly if I found out the world was going to end in five minutes I’d do very little different to what I try to do every hour of every day, so it really seems rather pointless to me to try and even broadly guesstimate when it will end.

And of course it’s no surprise to you or me or anyone who’s bothered to read a Bible that Christ will return at the end of days. We won’t be caught by surprise. But why chase after the rainbow of even an approximate time frame for it? People have been trying for 2,000 years - many of 'em had at least as much reason as you to think THEIR time was THE time.

All so far have been dead wrong. Go figure. Of course one day someone will guess and will be correct. Almost certainly this will be by sheer coincidence and no revelation or genuine prophecy - which all ended with Revelation anyway. And I wouldn’t bet on the correct ‘prophet’ being you or me.

OK; but I have also agreed here that time setting is not supported by the Bible; but why are you still arguing as if I am? If Jesus, through Bible prophecy, gives us certain warnings and admonitions, why should we not care about them? Why would it be so wrong to study these things to “see if they are so?” (Acts 17:11). When it comes to Bible prophecy, Catholics are much more vague than is the Bible. I wonder though, would your own Catholic writings even go so far as to support what you said in your last post here? You should maybe check that out a bit more. If I have time later, I will tell you.

 

[Protestant101]

You’re assuming that your denomination is the only one fit to interpret the Bible, which is not the case. Not only that, but there is NOWHERE in the Bible that says that Christians should go by the Bible alone. Catholics go by the Word of God alone, but the word of God isn’t limited to the Bible. If it were, then that would make sola scritpura Protestants into Deists, since it would be claiming that God just left and has nothing to say anymore… You’re not a deist, are you?

While others here may attend your gracious post with holy accolades; I cannot follow suit.

You obviously do not correctly understand “Sola Scriptura.” Sola Scriptura does not always mean that God cannot/does not work through other writings; only that those other writings can be/need to be verified by the Bible. If that can’t be done, then something is definitely wrong; and it’s NOT ever the Bible.

 

[De_Maria]

One of the first problems with the Catholic views on prophecy; is the nebulous nature of Catholic “interpretation” for prophecy.

I find it really odd that the church who claims such authority, (the only “real” authority" ) to interpret the Bible, has such trouble coming up with definitive Bible prophecy.

The most common line I hear from Catholics is that prophecy is really “only” “private revelation;” and we cannot know for sure what it really means. Whenever it comes to the topics in Daniel and Revelation; all of a sudden the Catholics go running to the haven of “private interpretation” and how prophecy is not the same as “doctrine.”

You will never figure out Bible prophecy, from Catholic sources.

So, do you mean that you have figured out Bible Prophecy from another source?

Because I’ve yet to see a consistent understanding between Protestant groups. There seem to be as many opinions about Bible prophecy as there are Bibles.

Whereas the Catholic Church humbly recognizes these words:

Mark 13 32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

Now, if neither the angels in heaven nor the Son know the day or the hour, what makes you think that you do? Are you God the Father?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Filius99993]

While others here may attend your gracious post with holy accolades; I cannot follow suit.

You obviously do not correctly understand “Sola Scriptura.” Sola Scriptura does not always mean that God cannot/does not work through other writings; only that those other writings can be/need to be verified by the Bible. If that can’t be done, then something is definitely wrong; and it’s NOT ever the Bible.

But those works would be the ones that you are denying as authentic… right? It’s not like Canon Law goes against anything in the Bible. Nothing in Catholic theology does.

 

[ryanoneil]

That’s not what he is doing here; no presumptions have been made. Jesus said to not be involved in date-setting for His second coming; and yet He also gave us many signs to look for to look and see just how close things were really were. He wants us to read the signs which He gave us to look for; the disciples even asked Jesus:

Now the answer that Jesus gave us is very interesting; one that I have not seen much from Catholics on; esp. Mat.24:15:

So it’s not wrong at all to try and find out how close we are; except for the fact we know that no exact date can be set.

Compair Matthew 24:4-35 with Luke sometime. In Luke 21:5-33 The is no mention of Christ’s second final coming. The apostles only ask when the temple will be destroyed.

Then compair Matthew 24:36-44 with Luke 17:22-37 about the signs before Jesus second coming at the end of history.

1. There is the two question view. When will the temple be destroyed and what signs will preceed Jesus’ return at the end of history? Which is demonstrated above.
2. And there is the one question view where Matthew 24-25 is Jesus single response to a single (two-sided) question about the Temple. The signs will preceed the Temple’s destruction but the day and hour are hidden. The Temple will be destroyed within one generation (Mat 16:28; 24:34; 26:64) The “close of the age” is the end of the Old Covenant age (70 A.D.) and is the public sign to the world of the coming of Christ’s kingdom. (New Age)

Thus, similar signs are expected before the final days of the New age and Christ’s Second Coming in glory. (at the end of time)

Peace,

Ryan

 

[LilyM]

OK; but I have also agreed here that time setting is not supported by the Bible; but why are you still arguing as if I am? If Jesus, through Bible prophecy, gives us certain warnings and admonitions, why should we not care about them? Why would it be so wrong to study these things to “see if they are so?” (Acts 17:11). When it comes to Bible prophecy, Catholics are much more vague than is the Bible. I wonder though, would your own Catholic writings even go so far as to support what you said in your last post here? You should maybe check that out a bit more. If I have time later, I will tell you.

If all you’re talking about are the admonitions that are already in the Bible, then of course we’re all in agreement. And really in such a case there’s no need to search anything - if they’re in the Bible they’re so.

I’m sure plenty has been said by Catholic scholars about these and every other blessed scripture passage and prophecy. What has been said on that score needs no further elaboration or interpretaion.

It was your insistence that there’s something more needs saying or examining is what lead me to think you must be searching for some sort of time framework. I am confident that everything else that can possibly be usefully gleaned from them has been already - the Catholic Church has, after all, only been studying these scriptures intensively for every day of the 1900-some years since they were written.

 

[beboldfor]

Let’s not forget Cambodia’s Pol Pot. Percentage-wise, he was the worst. Out of a population of 7 million, he killed 3 million for reasons like wearing eyeglasses or being able to read.

Gary

I did not say a Jewish soul is worth more than a non Jewish soul.Jesus loves us all equally. But the Jewish people have a special significance when it comes to understanding Gods plan. If the Cambodian people convert to Christianity it has no eschatological meaning. But the CCC says that at the end the Jewish people will convert, their actions and experiences reveal Gods working in the world. That is why I said that the Jewish people having a passion and resurrection experience followed by the retaking Jerusalem, which is a Biblical prophecy, is very important. No one has said anything about why Popes Paul VI and John Paul II made end times statements if these statements are useless or meaningless.

 

[LilyM]

I did not say a Jewish soul is worth more than a non Jewish soul.Jesus loves us all equally. But the Jewish people have a special significance when it comes to understanding Gods plan. If the Cambodian people convert to Christianity it has no eschatological meaning. But the CCC says that at the end the Jewish people will convert, their actions and experiences reveal Gods working in the world. That is why I said that the Jewish people having a passion and resurrection experience followed by the retaking Jerusalem, which is a Biblical prophecy, is very important. No one has said anything about why Popes Paul VI and John Paul II made end times statements if these statements are useless or meaningless.

Jesus made end-times statements as well, as did John. They also seem to have viewed the times they lived in as ‘atypical’ and certainly had a sense of urgency about getting their message across. Yet we’re still here and the world hasn’t ended 1900-some years later.

Such statements weren’t and aren’t useless or meaningless simply because they weren’t or aren’t about the IMMEDIATE future. Their use and meaning is to focus each of us on the need urgently to prepare for our own individual end-times, which are all coming all too soon.

 

[beboldfor]

Jesus made end-times statements as well, as did John. They also seem to have viewed the times they lived in as ‘atypical’ and certainly had a sense of urgency about getting their message across. Yet we’re still here and the world hasn’t ended 1900-some years later.

Such statements weren’t and aren’t useless or meaningless simply because they weren’t or aren’t about the IMMEDIATE future. Their use and meaning is to focus each of us on the need urgently to prepare for our own individual end-times, which are all coming all too soon.

The statements by the Popes were about the immediate future!!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

One of the first problems with the Catholic views on prophecy; is the nebulous nature of Catholic “interpretation” for prophecy.

I find it really odd that the church who claims such authority, (the only “real” authority" ) to interpret the Bible, has such trouble coming up with definitive Bible prophecy.

The most common line I hear from Catholics is that prophecy is really “only” “private revelation;” and we cannot know for sure what it really means. Whenever it comes to the topics in Daniel and Revelation; all of a sudden the Catholics go running to the haven of “private interpretation” and how prophecy is not the same as “doctrine.”

You will never figure out Bible prophecy, from Catholic sources.

You mistake prophecy for fortune telling.

I know that you can see tabloids at the supermarket checkout screaming “Bible Predicts (insert your favorite calamity) This Year” but the Bible was not written to predict the weather, the stockmarket or similar things. To say it was is to embrace Millienariansm.

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.578

(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Prophesy is simply communicating God’s word, and it generally relates to the times in which the inspired writer lived. The “fortune telling” in Revelation is very broad – the Church must go through a time of trial – which, given the times in which *Revelation *was written, was pretty obvious.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Jesus made end-times statements as well, as did John. They also seem to have viewed the times they lived in as ‘atypical’ and certainly had a sense of urgency about getting their message across. Yet we’re still here and the world hasn’t ended 1900-some years later.

Such statements weren’t and aren’t useless or meaningless simply because they weren’t or aren’t about the IMMEDIATE future. Their use and meaning is to focus each of us on the need urgently to prepare for our own individual end-times, which are all coming all too soon.

Such statements are eschatological, not historical – that is, they will be fulfilled in the End Times, not in ordinary time.

 

[LilyM]

The statements by the Popes were about the immediate future!!!

The Popes said the end of the world is coming soon? I’d love to see that. Quotes with full references please.

 

[beboldfor]

The Popes said the end of the world is coming soon? I’d love to see that. Quotes with full references please.

If you look over my previous posts, starting with the first, you will find the statements. You should also read Regis Scanlons article "Flood and Fire’ at ewtn.com, he has some of the references I do not. The very first statement by Pope Paul VI can be found in the New York Times.

 

[LilyM]

If you look over my previous posts, starting with the first, you will find the statements. You should also read Regis Scanlons article "Flood and Fire’ at ewtn.com, he has some of the references I do not. The very first statement by Pope Paul VI can be found in the New York Times.

What I saw from Paul VI were references to ‘a great moment’ and ‘a privileged moment’ - not at all the same thing as the end times. And if I remember correctly the criteria is that all the nations would CONVERT, and not simply that they would be preached to.

As for John Paul II, what I see there is references to a time of trial - well, duh. The Church is and has always been under attack in many forms and undergone many times of trial - Pagan Rome, the Arian heresy, the Great Schism, the Western Schism, the Reformation, the French Revolution … this post Vatican 2 period in itself is a great time of trial, bringing as it has and as it will continue to do, a lot of changes, a lot of strong emotions on all sides and a lot of attacks on the Church.

I simply don’t see end times in any of this.

 

[Protestant101]

I am confident that everything else that can possibly be usefully gleaned from them has been already - the Catholic Church has, after all, only been studying these scriptures intensively for every day of the 1900-some years since they were written.

Maybe you are too confident in something that does not exist except in the desperation of Roman Catholic apologetics? There are many who studied the Scriptures well before the Catholic Church was born.

 

[beboldfor]

What I saw from Paul VI were references to ‘a great moment’ and ‘a privileged moment’ - not at all the same thing as the end times. And if I remember correctly the criteria is that all the nations would CONVERT, and not simply that they would be preached to.

As for John Paul II, what I see there is references to a time of trial - well, duh. The Church is and has always been under attack in many forms and undergone many times of trial - Pagan Rome, the Arian heresy, the Great Schism, the Western Schism, the Reformation, the French Revolution … this post Vatican 2 period in itself is a great time of trial, bringing as it has and as it will continue to do, a lot of changes, a lot of strong emotions on all sides and a lot of attacks on the Church.

I simply don’t see end times in any of this.

The short time you took to read all that material tells me you must be a genius. And if you can’t understand what has been said
I don’t know if I can explain it. Please go over the material more carefully.