The Pope on Greece/RCC & the Wings of Dan 7 / Rev 12

[spauline]

OK, I’ll try to make this brief because when I write long diatribes, nobody seems to care.

Well, anyway, if I’m too brief, nobody will know what the hell I’m talking about, but whatever.

In short, the Pope says (here) that the Church was able to take what was good from the Greek heritage and “Catholicize it”, and that the gradual spiritual digression in Christian theology has been a “de-Hellenization”, so to speak.

Well, anyway hears my point of speculation: already four years ago I began to meditate on the apoc from the standpoint of the spiritual historicist method, and this is the essential brunt I came up with concerning Revelation 12: the Beast from the Sea and the Beast from the Earth.

Well, what I didn’t include in this brief essay was my speculation about what the “wings” are that the woman acquires when she flies to a temporary “rest” from the serpent. Well, anyway, if you read the brief article, in my interp, I see this temporary rest as Catholic Christendom of the Middle Ages. Well, anyway, when I was first meditating, I was asking myself, but what are the two wings? Well, I remembered from my youth reading (Hal Lindsay), (I know, save your protests until I’m done, and not only that, Catholicism can partially agree with Lindsay on some points), that the Leopard in Daniel 7, which, from a more orthodox interpretation, is Greece, had four wings. Now I now current scholarship says that this just serves to reinforce, as the imagery of the “leopard”, that Greece’s conquest was swift. But why not more meaning in the wings? for cannot the wings symbolize “those elements, even of the natural spirit, that can elevate man above a mere materialism.” Well, what four major contributions did Greece give the world in this sense. Well, this is just my opinion, but I believe the primary four would be:

****I. Philosophy ****
****II. Art ****
**III. Drama **
IV. Atheletics

Well, lo and behold, the woman receives “two wings” in Revelation 12, and I find it, especially in light of the comments of our holy Father, that truly, the acquisition of Art and Philosophy from the Greeks, and their “Catholicization” was certainly two of the most significant contributions to the Church that indeed enabled her to flourish in the Middle Ages. For did not the majestic art of Catholicism lead to some of the most beautiful and mystical monuments to the beauty of Christ shining through the lives of the saints, whose majestic images populate countless temples of glory throughout Europe, that is, in the glorious churches and Cathedrals that come to us. And has not the acquisition of Philosophy been an immense aid in the development of doctrine and in the mechanism whereby that pure reason of the human intellect, when aided by the Divine Light of grace, becomes a powerful weapon in the defense and explanation of the truths of the faith.

And it is quite fitting, as the Holy Father points out, that these noble acquisitions of Church culture both were attacked heavily beginning with Protestantism, seeing as the hard hearted heretics attacked both ART and REASON. For have not the Protestants attacked the great beauty of Sacred Images, mercilessly accusing Catholics of “idol worship” and of also throwing out reason. I mean, in these forums, the debates go back and forth, but it is ultimately the heretics who come into these forums to attack who are not living by reason and truth and beauty and goodness. I firmly believe that if any human being wishes to believe what is good, and REASONABLE and BEAUTIFUL, he will become Catholic, for as Dr. Hahn put it, “The Roman Catholic Church is like a lion. It doesn’t need a defense. Simply let it out of its cage, and it will defend itself.” This is absolutely true. The doctrines of the faith are truly consistent with reason and goodness. Once a heretic is shown the true teachings of the Church, and their explanations from philosophy and Scripture, if they still persist to reject them, it is evident then that the individual does not have an intellectual problem. Then, only two possibilities remain (or a mixture of the two): sin, or some psychological/emotional trauma, problem.

… continued…

 

[spauline]

… continued

But so then, when I had these speculations that** the wings given to the woman are Greek** Art and Philosophy, I was told that was wild speculation and not very important in the history of the Church. But in light of the Holy Father’s analysis, I’m not so sure that that’s true.

What thinks all of you?

here’s an addenduum:

Again, these four great element of Greek culture, Art, Philosophy, Drama, and Athletics, were perhaps more sinful than good. That is, hedonistic art, chaotically confused philosophy (due to the general darkness of polytheism and lack of Divine Revelation), paganistic Drama, and selfishly ambitious Athletics (striving for worldly glory instead of offering it in love and sacrifice), But this doesn’t NEED to be the case, for any of these things possess the possiblity (that has already been actualized by the Catholic Church!) of being elevated from a mere natural level (the four wings of Greece) to a ****SUPERnatural ****level (Catholicism). For Catholicism has taken Art that was previously used for largely hedonistic or polytheistic purposes and ELEVATED it to the supernatural, as a means of bearing witness to the divine nature of the saints, in so far as they are “partakers of the divine nature”, in that they were given and were perfected in sanctifying grace, which is itself a true created sharing in the Divine Life and Love of the Trinity. For how can one not be awestruck to enter a great Medieval Cathedral that is adorned with countless glorious images of Christ, Our Queen Mother, and the saints, images that lead our spirit towards God, to contemplate the true beauty, which is spiritual? How can one not help but praise God in such a situation for His Infinite Mercy towards mankind in the person of His Son?

And so also, the Church has taken that pure human intellect in ****natural ****philosophy and elevated it to the SUPERnatural, no longer being used merely to find the truths of the natural order (such as mathematics), but, rather, the most important, ultimate truths, those of the supernatural realm.

as a result, I can’t help but think that the great synthesis of these things that originated in paganism with Catholicism has been a great development that has quite significant implications for how the Church has developed and grown through the ages since.

But, anyway, sorry for the diatribe!

Blessings!

 

[Image_of_God]

I know St. Thomas Aquinas helped with these things.

 

[spauline]

I know St. Thomas Aquinas helped with these things.

Well, yes, of course! I wasn’t saying this would be the ONLY meaning. Of course, all other Catholic exegesis in history could apply as well, such as the wings being the grace of God or other divine intervention. I was just suggesting it as a possible additional level of meaning. For Scripture can have many layers of meaning at once.

 

[copland]

As for Revelation 12, the woman is Mary first, and I believe that all other interpretations come secondary to her in that passage. Here is what Oecumenius had to say about the wings that you mentioned concerning Rev. 12:14. Let us take a patristic approach!

---

*And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. *

*He says that the woman was not handed over to Satan, but fled into the desert. This is Egypt, as was said earlier. So it was that the prophet sought “wings like those of a dove,” to “fly away and be at rest in the desert.(Ps. 54:7-8)” But more powerful wings of the great eagle were given to the all-holy Virgin. He means by the wings of the eagle the intervention of the divine angel, who exhorted Joseph to take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. By this intervention it was as though they reached Egypt on the wings of an eagle. So the serpent, failing in this plot, which he had arrived through Herod, devises another plot against the Virgin, the destruction of her son, and so accordingly he goes on to describe the Lord’s cross and death. Oecumenius Commentary on Revelation]

St. Epiphanius of Salamis said much the same,

She was given wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her. Perhaps this can be applied to her (Mary), I cannot decide for certain, and I am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I saying that she died.” Epiphanius Panarion 78:11]

The passage can also be applied to the Church, as St. Bede does, which is secondary to the Marian interpretation, and here is what he said about the wings,

wings. The Church is upheld by the two Testaments, and avoids the envenomed tumult of the world, and seeks in the affection of her mind the solitude of a “meek and quiet spirit (1 St. Pet. iii. 4),” while she thus sings with joy, “Behold I got me away far off in flight, and abode in the wilderness (Ps. liv. 8)” Nor does it make any difference that there she asks for the wings of a dove, but here receives those of an eagle. or as the Church, "whose youth is renewed as an eagle’s (

Ps. cii. 5) ," is represented in the former because of the gift of the Holy Spirit, so also is it in the latter, because of the lofty flight and heavenly vision, by which it beholds God with a clean heart. St. Bede Commentary on Revelation]

 

[copland]

Catholicism can partially agree with Lindsay on some points), that the Leopard in Daniel 7, which, from a more orthodox interpretation, is Greece, had four wings. Now I now current scholarship says that this just serves to reinforce, as the imagery of the “leopard”, that Greece’s conquest was swift. But why not more meaning in the wings? for cannot the wings symbolize “those elements, even of the natural spirit, that can elevate man above a mere materialism.” Well, what four major contributions did Greece give the world in this sense. Well, this is just my opinion, but I believe the primary four would be:

****I. Philosophy ****
****II. Art ****
**III. Drama **
IV. Atheletics

I get your point. Though I do believe that there are primary and secondary interpretations, and I usually go with the Patristic interpretation if it is not in conflict with Catholic dogma. As far as Daniel 7:6, here is what St. Jerome had to say about it,

Verse 6. *“After this I beheld, and lo, there was another beast *(C) *like unto a leopard, and it had jour wings of a bird *(666) *all its own *?the *per se *here is obscure], *and there were four heads to the beast, and power was given to it.” *The third kingdom was that of the Macedonians, of which we read in connection with the image, “The belly and thighs were of bronze.” It is compared to a leopard because it is very swift and *hormetikos *[impetuous], and it charges headlong to shed blood, and with a single bound rushes (p. 530) to its death. “And it had four wings…” There was never, after all, any victory won more quickly than Alexander’s, for he traversed all the way from Illyricum and the Adriatic Sea to the Indian Ocean and the Ganges River, not merely fighting battles but winning decisive victories; and in six years he subjugated to his rule a portion of Europe and all of Asia. And by the four heads reference is made to his generals who subsequently rose up as successors to his royal power, namely Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip , and Antigonus [the precursor of Seleucus in the rule of the Asiatic portion of Alexander’s empire]. “And power was given to it” shows that the empire did not result from Alexander’s bravery but from the will of God.

 

[spauline]

As for Revelation 12, the woman is Mary first, and I believe that all other interpretations come secondary to her in that passage. Here is what Oecumenius had to say about the wings that you mentioned concerning Rev. 12:14. Let us take a patristic approach!
…I get your point. Though I do believe that there are primary and secondary interpretations, and I usually go with the Patristic interpretation if it is not in conflict with Catholic dogma. …

well, yes, I’m not at all attacking the patristic witness, nor do I intend to imply that my opinion is a primary meaning. I realize also that it is just that: my opinion. And, again, see my statement above: the Scriptures can have many layers of meaning all at the same time, or in different contexts. So, I can definitely accept the patristic quotes you have given. No problem.

On the other hand, I have heard (and perhaps you could correct me, given the research that i understand you are taking on these matters) that some ECFs suggest that some parts of the apocalypse were even then not fully understood and that, through doctrinal development, further meanings would be drawn by the Church. In fact, if memory serves me right, I read on the back of Tan’s Fr. Kramer’s “The Book of Destiny” that many mystics haver predicted that toward the end, some persons in the Church will develop great and deep meanings in the apocalyptic data. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t at all claim to be such a holy person like that, but I just want to point out that it is not necessarily true that the full implications of what the apocalyptic data contains have actually been realized. In fact, is this not what the CCC describes, as per 2 Thes 2, that the Church has yet to reveal the “mystery of iniquity,” which would seem to imply, amongst other things, a certain full understanding of God’s total plan for the Redemption of the human race, including the Church Age, and by way of implication, the full intended meaning of the Scriptures regarding these questions.

But, anyway, thank for the patristic quotes. I pray that God Bless you!

scott

 

[spauline]

BTW, copland,

I am very excited about your research into these things. But might I suggest that the problem with modern life is that we have these extremes: futurists and preterists, and I think that whereas there may be some validity to either of these approaches, neither is very useful. I mean, according to Ott, and the recent Pope himself, the Apocalyptic data is concerned with the “meaning of and God’s Plan for, human history.” But the problem is, neither futurism NOR preterism really addresses these questions. I mean, I find it equally as useless to know that there was a literal “five month war” (the fifth trumpet) in the fall of Jerusalem, as that there will be (according to Hal Lindsay ) a horde of literal helicopters that will torture people for five months at the very end of the world. Father Kramer’s assessment that sees a more meaningful approach as the Prot Rev, seems to have far more significance and relevance than the preceeding extremes. Not that, perhaps, on the level of preterism, the five month Jewish Roman war is the literal sense, but come on, is that all there is to it? And I’m not suggesting Lindsay’s absurdities. I mean, isnt’ spiritual historicism more in line with what would give meaning to human history?

Well, anyway, I’m sorry, but I’m really getting sick of the debate between the extremes and looking for something that USEFUL substance.

Anyway, may God bless your research.

scott

 

[copland]

spauline,

You explain yourself very very well! And your insight and knowledge is quite impressive to me. You seem to know exactly why you believe what you believe, which not everyone has developed themselves to that point, and sometimes never do. So my hat is off to you.

I guess I hold tight to the patristic interpretation and I am very cautious with modern exgesis is because as we both know that there are tons of educated but unbridled ‘Biblical exegetes and prophecy preachers’ out there, who, with carisma and a smooth tongue, can manipulate people with the Scriptures. But I guess I rely on the Fathers like John Henry Cardinal Newman did, here is what he said about the Fathers and prophecy,

Yet, though the Fathers do not convey to us the interpretation of prophecy with the same certainty as they convey doctrine, yet in proportion to their agreement, their personal character, and the general reception at the time, or the authority of the sources of the opinions they are stating, they are to be read with deference; for, to say the least, they are as likely to be right as commentators now; in some respects more so, because the interpretation of prophecy has become in these times a matter of controversy and party. And passion and prejudice have so interfered with soundness of judgment, that it is difficult to say who is to be trusted in it, or whether a private Christian may not be as good an expositor as those by whom the office has been assumed. John Henry Cardinal Newman Sermon I: The Times of Antichrist ]

But enough of my rambling on about my position, this is not what your thread was intended for. Sorry.

What led you to this meditation that you were talking about? Did you study your way to that point, or did you just kind of run onto those passages?

 

[spauline]

copland:

You explain yourself very very well! And your insight and knowledge is quite impressive to me. …

I guess I hold tight to the patristic interpretation and I am very cautious with modern exgesis …
…
What led you to this meditation that you were talking about? Did you study your way to that point, or did you just kind of run onto those passages?

Dear copland,

thank you for your compliments! I don’t think I’m that good, but thank you anyway. Well, to respond to your first question, I wholeheartedly agree that we should start with the Fathers and patristics in any analysis of Scripture, for they are certainly quite authoritative as well the closest to the apostles. I agree with you in that sense. I also relate to the fact that there a lot of “Bible preachers and ‘prophets’”, who can be ludicrously sensational and manipulative, not to mention that the brunt of what they talk about are irrelevant questions anyway. For example, here’s a quote from an essay that I wrote to show that much of Fundamenatlist speculation “misses the point” (and for the complete article, click here):

And so, in “meeting the Jews where they were,” God gives such Revelations of specific temporal history [in Daniel] as a sure and undisputed sign that He was still with them and would be with them until the Coming of the Messiah.

HOWEVER…. (and this is a BIG ‘However’), now that Christ has come… Jesus, has revealed to us the above-mentioned mystery of the human condition: all of our problems and solutions involve the SPIRITUAL! We now know that all the sufferings of earth for the most part are caused by a spiritual sickness, and that the associated solution is also spiritual. …It is He that Redeems our intellects through Revelation and our wills through grace.,

And so asking “what will the king of the north do to the king of the south and how will Gog or Magog get involved, and then what will Russia do China, etc.” is irrelevant. How these things work out is not the point. These are just symptoms of an underlying problem that is spiritual.

And so the basic questions that we need to ask in human history now is “to what degree does any society or collection of societies know the truths about God and how much grace do they have and to what degree do they cooperate with it?”

And since the Catholic Church is the primary vehicle through which Christ gives the world these things, these questions are the same as “To what degree does the world believe in and cooperate with, respectively, the teachings and grace mediated to it through the Catholic Church?”

… continued

 

[spauline]

…continued…

Toward that end, as the above quotes emphasize, if there was to be any “prophetic” element to the Book of Revelation (beyond the era of the Early Church), the only such “prophecy” that would be of any practical use would be laying out the major spiritual epochs that the Church traverses, like the Great Schism, Protestantism, the Enlightenment, or even our moder minor secular apostasy. If any bad things happen temporally within these subepochs, they are irrelevant, because what ultimately matters is not what some nations do to others in terms of wars, or earthquakes, or any other physically bad things, but the general spiritual condition of the societies in question.

But getting back to the patristics, the above interps on the wings of Revelation 12 is kind of me speculating on my own, HOWEVER, I have alot more speculation where this came from, and what I have discoverd that alot of stuff that I’ve come up with in just my personal meditations has support from patristic sources. In fact, the biggest example of this is the very first thing that started my meditaitons on the apocalypse, and that was the brief (but what I think is bigtime primary verses) section of Revelation 17 on the beast and its seven “heads”. well, anyway, that was what set off some four years and still going strong meditation. In that very beginning, I had the sense that, “Man, there has to be something more than just some arbitrary collection of Roman Emperors and the rumor that Nero would come back from the dead in the beast. There just has to be!” That is, intuitively, I could see that what was suggested here was a broad summary of all of salvation history, and not just Rome. But an approach had eluded me because, with the “five have fallen”, I thought, well is it kingdoms? but what five? there were more than five in the OT that persecuted God’s People. Then it just came to me. I said, “Wait a minute! It’s probably BROADER than just kingdoms. It’s sinful resistance in human history in General. Then I thought, how do we partition the kings?” Well, it’s self evident! What partitions sin except Redemption? Hence, I just said to myself, “OK, let’s see how many major Divine acts of the Redemption occurred in the OT from the Flood to Christ. If there’s five, inclusive, bingo, there’s your five ages of sin that have ‘fallen’.” and lo and behold, it worked out!:

1. The Flood
2. Confounding of languages at Babel and calling of Abraham
3. The Exodus
4. The Restoration of OT Cov after Bablonian Exile
5. The First Coming of Christ.

Now, I’m sorry for the diatribe, and i know I’m off topic, but I’m trying to point out a major example of my speculation turns up in the Fathers. Only later now have I learned that this partitioning was done by Augustine himself (see the quote in here). And St. Methodius, without deriving this partitioning, also says, “five are the ages of the old law…” (again, see above link on my site). Also, in the same page, St. Hippolytus recognizes the possibility of the kings of the beast being “ages”,without, evidently giving a delineation.

My point through all of this is, I can definitely agree with you that any analysis of Scripture should be founded and started with patristic commentaries. But I think that it is possible to BUILD on the doctrine of the Fathers, in the sense, that, as the Church matures through the development of its doctrine, further insights and deeper meanings can be drawn, and especially as more of the history of the Church enfolds.

…continued…

 

[spauline]

… continued…

As a comment, as to how I came up with the wings interp of Dan 7 and Rev. 12, I was partly speculating, but also thinking to interpret the imagery based on already suggested metaphors suggested in Scripture, especially the one about the earth being the magisterium, seeing as Christ, James, and Paul, all use suggestions that convey the essence that the earth is like a foundation, and that the Church in particular (especially Peter) are foundations! If you are interested in further speculations that build on these and other Scriptural and Catholic metaphors and theology, you might check out these:

Five Loaves and Two Fish: the Seven Sacraments?

also, building on the above, I give an interesting (IMHO ) idealistic analysis of

The Seal of God, the Mark of the Beast, and Everything in Between

also, I use OT typology in a spiritual interpretation of the Two Witnesses as the Scripture and Tradition, as a type of the OT prophets.

also, in regards to a development of the beast, which also incorporates the imagery of the “darkness followed by light” symbolism of the days of creation,as well as the ECF tradition regarding the days of creation analogy to the “re-creation” of the world through redemption, you could check out this:

Historicism and the Seven Days of Creation / Seven Heads of the Beast

Anyway, I’m sorry for the diatribe, and I’m now even more off subject than you were D), but thank you again for your comments. I will try to share more later as I am able.

Blessings to you in your further compliations and research!

scott

 

[spauline]

oh, copland,

i forgot to mention one more very important point so that i am not misunderstood: I don’t think it’s simply a question of “prophecy”, even if in the sense of spiritual epochs. for admittedly, someone could say, “even if we know all the future spiritual epochs, so what?” No, it’s also a question of WHY the epochs occur in this fashion. It’s a question of how mankind will wind up in an incurable spiritual depravity. and those questions are deeply spiritual and psychological.

here’s a quote from one of the essays:

But there is still another problem. Many Catholics would attack these arguments because they make a liberal claim, and that being, “Look, there is no structure, even spiritual, to Church history, and for that matter, OT history. The Church simply passes through myriads of trials and tribulations and victories, the collection of which cannot be grouped in any sense. Hence, the only interpretation from the above spiritual interp would be idealism. The end of the world for all practical purposes is when you die. No one knows the day or the hour, so leave it alone…”

The problem with this type thinking is that it is un-orthodox. This is because it is general Catholic teaching, based on 2 Thess. 2, that the Church will reveal the “mystery of iniquity.” This mystery will apparently be the final dogma of the Church that reveals the Plan of God from the foundation of the world for its Redemption, and, when this dogma is promulgated, it will state that this Pplan will be at its end at that time, that is, that God will have completed His Redemptive work in the “fullness of the Gentiles” and that man will then be departing from this Redemption in an irrevocable and irredeemable manner, hence warranting the final administration of God’s Justice, the end of human history, and the New, Everlasting Creation.

But if the dismissive liberals’ theology is correct, that is, that Church history, and, even worse, OT history, has no conceivable structure to it, that it is just one big random mess of trials and victories that cannot be organized in any fashion, how then will the Church be able to recognize that the human race is departing from God in a final irrevocable manner?

Hence, based on this unanswerable question, we must believe that there is, in fact, a structure, or process, to salvation history, and therefore a process that must be, intrinsically, SPIRITUAL! This MUST be the case if the Church will be able to recognize when the world will be ending.

in other word, there is this mystery of the Church discerning when mankind falls into great sin a final time, a time that can no longer be redeemed. And so the answers to these questions must be somehow already contained in the deposit of faith in Scripture and Tradition. One of these pressing questions is then if the faith will be restored to any significant extent, which is also inseparable from the question of to what degree Chrisitians will be reunited. toward that end, you might read this: On Christian Disunity and Christ’s Eucharistic Prayer.

Again, sorry for the diatribe.

blessings to you!