As you know there are conflicting opinions on this,even among sincere scholars. It is possible that one or another person (including scholars) can prefer one or another position based upon ideological reasons, but there is legitimate evidence for both.
This is true if you do not accept the view the Church has held as to when the Apocalypse takes place, i.e., it is taking place now. Barber chooses Scott Hahn’s speculative view, which is not supported nor spoken about by the fathers of the Church, which places the Apocalypse in the past- i.e., it ends a bit past where the Church’s version starts.
Robert Sungenis places the date of writing as 90’s AD being likely (but is not definite on it), while Barber chooses AD 60’s. He implies that the destruction of the temple in AD 70 was the specific second coming of Christ foretold in Apocalypse (but recognizes it as a type of the final second coming). This is because Barber (like Hahn and Corsini) place the millenium of the Apocalypse starting with David and ending in the destruction of the Temple. This is quite novel, actually. The standard Church view is that the millenium starts at the cross, when Satan is bound for the Church age (the symbolic Millenium) and ends at the second coming.
Throughout the age of the Church from the first Fathers through today there were really only two views considered- Chiliasm and amillenialism. The first view was rejected since Augustine at least and is not permitted to be taught (Pius XII), while the second has been the Church view since at least Augustine. The view espoused by Barber and Hahn is a 20th century invention with no support from the Fathers.
You may like it from a logical point of view, but it is not a Church view. We are not Protestants, we cannot invent new views because they make sense. I realize the Church has not rejected this view, but nor has it supoorted it. I believe the only view the Church has explicitly rejected is Chiliasm. The only non-rejected view the Church has supported is amillenialism. I do not believe the Church has explicitly rejected the rapture (i.e., Papal declarations or councils), so why not accept it if it “makes sense”? Obviously we do not because it has no Church support. The Apocalypse is such a complex and highly symbolic book that probably hundreds of interpretations that “make sense” can be created. That is why Catholics stay with Tradition.
The Apocalypse book uses the RSV translation as the basis, so does not require approval for the Scriptural portion. The only reason Sungenis would need approval for the commentary portion would be to allow it to be used in Catholic schools or to sell at Church bookstores. Sungenis is attempting to get one for the Apocalypse.
.I did not say that either Hahn or Barber are protestant. I was responding to Fidelis comment that he liked a specific view because it made more sense. I was pointing out that this what the Protestants do, and that Catholics tend to stay with tradition.
Come on. Read what you wrote.
Yes you were talking to Fidelis but who “invented” the views your talking about? Not Fidelis. Hahn and Barber.
I don’t have the book so why would I? I never said having an imprimatur means everything. But when your supposed to get one like Dr. Sungenis was supposed to get one and you don’t it means something to me and I think it should to Catholics. And when you’re having trouble getting other ones it means something too. Just be the same with everyone. Don’t be different with Dr. Sungenis.
What are you talking about? You wrote as much about Dr. Sungenis in this thread as anyone.this thread is not about Robert’s book, but Barber’s. I understand your point, but it probably should be made in the other thread
For the record, I do not believe Hahn or Barber are Protestant, they are clearly Catholic. I can see how what I wrote implies such.
I understand your concern about the imprimatur, and will not argue against it. I still stand by my recommendation of Sungenis’ book, even without imprimatur and my non-recommendation of Barber’s book with imprimatur.
If you read what I wrote, most of it was responding to others (including you). The only mention I made of Sungenis initially (in this thread) was as a reference point in dating the Apocalypse, as well as stating that the Barber review complimented the Sungenis review. Admittedly within the review itself, I do mention Sungenis.
My view is neither: I see the Church age as not the whole of the Millennium, but as the collective scenes of the dragon from the Ascension to the final release. Hence, the Millennium is only PART of the Church Age, not the entire age itself. This is because the collective scenes with the dragon can be seen as the whole of Salvation history itself and a type of the way of the Saint. Herein is perhaps the deeper key that has eluded theologians. Liberals want to read Revelation 20 purely allegorically, including amillers. Fundamentalists want to take it absolutely literally. The solution is most likely in between these extremes: from the ascension of the Christ Child until Gog and Magog, is the entire age of the Church itself. For how the hell can the dragon be wrecking hell on earth and be chained in the abyss at the same time. That’s the problem with amill. It interprets the scenes of the dragon as full allegory instead of partial. Just as the Fundamentalists take it absolutely literally. No, the period from the ascension of the child until Revelation 13, given multidimensionality, is actually from pagan Rome until now. The bowls, in multidimension, are coming (as well as occured in pagan Rome and will occur in the great apostasy). And the chaining of the dragon is yet future. That’s the age of peace. When the dragon is let loose the final time, after the Millennium, that is great apostasy, when, again in multidimensionlaty, Revelation 13 through 16 will be fulfilled again. And the Last Judgement, that is the Second Coming. My take on things anyway!
You obviously don’t know Scott Hahn’s view on the apocalypse and by extension you probably don’t know the view of Michael Barber. Hahn has never said that the apocalypse is a purely past event. His view is that there are references to both AD70 and the future. His view that the book of Revelation shows the liturgy as heavenly worship only supports amillenialism, i.e. that the apocalypse is now(hence his title for one chapter, Apocalypse Now, in his book.)
Finally, somebody said it.
I have not read Hahn’s book, but Barber states explicitly that the Millennium is from King David to the destruction of the temple. By Jewish millennium, I mean that the millennium ends with the destruction of the Jewish temple, i.e., the whole millenium occurs within and up to the end of the Jewish temple religion, and the Apocalypse relates to the Jewish religion as it becomes fulfilled in the Christian. Barber relates many lessons today to the lessons learned by the Jewish people. Barber claims to base his book on Hahn’s views.
I never said Scott Hahn was a preterist. His view of the Apocalypse is interpreted through the Mass. Still Barber holds that Hahn takes the millennium to occur in a literal period between King David and the destruction of the temple. Hahn’s views may not be formally preterist. Still others do see it as having preterist qualities: