Why doesn't the Catholic Church have a stance on the Book of Revelations

[racing59]

First, because doctrine comes from God, and the Church cannot advance a doctrine unless God so chooses to do so. Much like in the Old Testament and the New, God reveals in stages, the understanding of Himself. So if the Church has not assigned a “doctrine on Revelation” it is because there either is no such thing, or because God has not chosen to reveal it at this time. Make no mistake the Catechism explicitly says the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Scripture.

Second, Revelation especially, and the whole of Scripture, has meaning at multiple levels. For the Church to provide an official commentary on Scripture could create a trap that the meaning has been finally discovered and exhausted. Of course, the depth and richness of divine revelation is better understood throughout the centuries and in different cultures even, in new contexts and re-readings. Prior meanings don’t “change” but are built upon and better understood.

This still does not address my questions in my previous posting. If the Holy Spirit has not revealed in full Revelation, how can you add to it, when John clearly stated not to. Also, the other questions on what the early Church believed.

 

[racing59]

It’s in the Bible. What more of a stance do you want?

Remember that the Bible experts of 2000 years ago–the scribes and Pharisees–had it worked out according to their reading of the Scripture what the Messiah was supposed to do when He came.

The Messiah came, He did NOT follow their agenda, and so they rejected him.

This should be a warning to those who try to come up with agendas for the Second Coming.

My agenda is not the second coming, but the spirit for the search of truth!

 

[ralphinal]

O.K. lets take out the term “Rapture”, the fact is the Early church believed though saw the New Jerusalem as stated by Tertullian between 207-212 A.D. , the first fruits rose from the dead, walk around Jerusalem for 40 days after Jesus resurrection. Also stated in Matthew 27. These are facts stated in the Gospel of Matthew and by Tertullian an early church father. Mark13, Luke 21 , and Matthew further wrote in chapter 24 on the destruction of the Temple and the coming that Matthew 24 verse 34 " Amen, I saw to you, this generation will not pass until all these things have happen." My question is if there is no doctrine on Revelation, then how can the church interpret the term "generation ? Second how can the church add to Revelation by injecting Revelation 21:1-5 ( on the new Heaven and earth) during the middle ages, when it was not present in the original Vulgate ? Third the evidence shows the early church believed John’s Revelation was for them ( with the exception of the Second coming of Jesus).

Just because the entire work has no manditory meaning does not mean that terms or verses have not been defined.

As far was what was and was not in the Vulgate, I do not ahve information on this. will say that things get left out of translations all the time, and added in. Sometimes, we must put stufff back that was left out.

Do you accept the Comma Johannium?

 

[Reuben_J]

My agenda is not the second coming, but the spirit for the search of truth!

Hi. I have the impression that you may think Catholics have a problem with the Book of Revelation. They do not. It is being used extensively just like any other books in the Bible either in Liturgy or in their lives. There are many beautiful verses and passages there, like in any other books, and they have their own purposes for the Church and Christians as a whole.

BTW, do you have any particular verses / passages of Revelation that you want to ask and discussed here?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

To my understanding there is no Catholic doctrine on Revelation except for a few excerpts in the CCC, not the entire book. I have found a majority of non-Catholic Churches to take the Futurist view.
Four views of Revelation:

Idealist; Revelation fulfilled in a individuals life.

Predirest: Revelation fulfilled in the 1st century and at the end of time.

Historical: Revelation fulfilled in the 1st century except for the second coming of Christ.

Futurist: Revelation fulfilled at the end of time ( view mostly widely held in modern American times, by Christian Churches.

I was just curios about this topic and felt it would make good conversation. I for one stand on the historical view.

The CC certainly has some doctrine on the Book of Revelation: namely, that is inspired & canonical.​

BTW, none of those approaches is adequate. The book is an example of apocalyptic writing (which has some superficial similarities to Preterism). What it is not, is history-in-advance - no other book is written that way: including the Prophets. Apocalyptic, like all other types of literature in the Bible, in both Testaments, is in the first instance for the contemporaries of the author. Futurism leaves us with the ridiculous possibility that - if Rev. were address to the future instead of to John’s contemporaries, it might not be fulfilled until one billion AD. If it foretells 16th century Popes or 20th century US politicians, it becomes completely irrelevant to all the centuries, generations, & millennia before then. LOgically - if it is predicting the future - there is no way to exclude the possibility that the AC will be descended from the Martians who will come to Earth in 10,000 AD. If St. John can be talking about a Papacy or & USA of which he knew nothing (because neither even existed when he wrote), then a reference to what is future to us as well as to him cannot be ruled out.

This degrades the book horribly, by leading people to read their own fantasies & insecurities into it, so that every public figure of any reputation, century after century, is identified as the Antichrist. Napoleon I was the AC; so was Hitler; so was the Kaiser; so was Saddam, so are Dubya & Obama; so was Pius IX, & a llt of other Popes. But St. John was not interested in US politics, or the Papacy, or European power-politics - why should he be ? He was not talking about any of that stuff. But the Bible abusers are: so they make this holy book the mouthpiece of their own lunacies, phobias & obsessions

If Revelation is predicting a future centuries later than its author, that means that there was no connection between the writing down of the words, & the thinking that preceded it. IOW, Revelation becomes a pice of “automatic writing” - something produced in the same way as the scribblings of someone at a seance. This makes him an early Christian Nostradamus, or Jeane Dixon, or one of the people who read tea-leaves. That reduces the book to a piece of mindless fortune-telling, & makes its author a charlatan: *another *degradation of this holy book.

Happily, the recognition of the book as an apocalyptic writing is common to Biblical scholars, regardless of their religious affiliation. The division lies not there, but between Fundamentalists (regardless of their churchmanship) & critical scholars (again, regardless of their religious affiliation). There are other apocalyptic texts in the Bible, & many outside it.

The book is as intelligible as any other in the NT or the Bible - it is not a cryptogram: but it is doomed to seem one if it is read as history-in-reverse or if irrelevancies (such as what interests readers later than its author & his addressees) are read into it. If we read our concerns nto it - that is all we will get out of it. It has a perfectly intelligible theology. For some reason, people will treat political or economic or other ideas with a respect they do not show to those in any book in the Bible, including Revelation. As though it were the purpose of God to inspire meaningless rubbish

 

[Gatell]

Hi Folks:

I remember reading about the significance of 666 and found confort in finding out that it was a numerical value for Nero. I wish I had better memory, but was Revelation not a book written to warn Christians about the persecutions?

I’ll look into this further, for my own satisfaction. But I would certainly welcome some clarity from the experts here.

Victor

 

[notsmart]

Hi Folks:

I remember reading about the significance of 666 and found confort in finding out that it was a numerical value for Nero. I wish I had better memory, but was Revelation not a book written to warn Christians about the persecutions?

I’ll look into this further, for my own satisfaction. But I would certainly welcome some clarity from the experts here.

Victor

I certainly see this in reading the Apocolypse (Revelation) myself.
John seemed to me anyway, to be a bit depressed of what he saw in his (for lack of a better word, vision? or insight given by God to the things to come)

If it really was the same John who was at the foot of the cross that wrote it (and we don’t know if it was) I could imagine that he would have realized that suffering was going to be great for those who believed. Stephan, to the person who was most recently a martyr in heaven crying out to God “when?” (when will the “end”/begginig come?)
But unfortunately, not all the martyrs are there yet.
But, I tell myself that if Jesus could die for me, I should be prepared to die also, and not forsake him if God willing I will have the grace to do so as others have. Gulp.
This is scary. But here I am anyway.

 

[ralphinal]

Other than the Gosple of John, Revelation is the book in the Bible that I have read the most.

Personally, I see it as comfort to the oppressed Church.

I see it as a re-telling of Salvation.

I see it as events leading up to the destruction of the Temple.

I see it as showing us heaven and the nature of the Church, the New Jerusalem.

 

[racing59]

I believe there has been a misunderstanding of were I’m coming from. I quest for full truth in the Sacred Scriptures. 1 John4:1-3 calls us to test everything to make sure it is in the Spirit of the Lord. John 4:3 “This is the spirit of the antichrist that,as you herd, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.” It would seem to me John’s vision in Revelation was for the early church that was under tremendous persecution. The bride of Jesus, his church, was delievered to the early christian according to Tertullian a church father. So you are saying to believe John’s vision was to give a historical significance to God’s message of hope for the early christian’s would be in error? To assosiate Revelation’s with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D, the unvaling of the Christian church with the exception of the second coming) would be in error ? Why then did the early church believe this way?

 

[colliric]

Hi Folks:

I remember reading about the significance of 666 and found confort in finding out that it was a numerical value for Nero. I wish I had better memory, but was Revelation not a book written to warn Christians about the persecutions?

I’ll look into this further, for my own satisfaction. But I would certainly welcome some clarity from the experts here.

Victor

The traditional belief about Authorship is that it was written by the Apostle John, after he had been banished to the island of Patmos, under the reign of Domitian during the second persecutions. Under the original traditional authorship belief, it is not entirly possible to tie it singularily down to the first persecutions, but rather All persecutions.

The numerical value is symbolic of anyone who opposses Christ, to the Hebrews 6 is an imperfect number, 3 times means it’s paramountly imperfect. It happens to exceptionally interestingly coincide with Nero’s numerical value, but the authorship tradition of the Church puts it several years after Nero and I am starting to agree with that original tradition.

Perhaps the number is therefore symbolic of the “Roman Emperor”, or anyone else who opposes Christ in a manner such as Nero did. Or who knows, maybe the book was written during Nero’s reign, but the tradition of the church says not so.

 

[notsmart]

I believe there has been a misunderstanding of were I’m coming from. I quest for full truth in the Sacred Scriptures. 1 John4:1-3 calls us to test everything to make sure it is in the Spirit of the Lord. John 4:3 “This is the spirit of the antichrist that,as you herd, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.” It would seem to me John’s vision in Revelation was for the early church that was under tremendous persecution. The bride of Jesus, his church, was delievered to the early christian according to Tertullian a church father. So you are saying to believe John’s vision was to give a historical significance to God’s message of hope for the early christian’s would be in error? To assosiate Revelation’s with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D, the unvaling of the Christian church with the exception of the second coming) would be in error ? Why then did the early church believe this way?

There is always hope!
Spe Salvi.

 

[ralphinal]

I believe there has been a misunderstanding of were I’m coming from. I quest for full truth in the Sacred Scriptures. 1 John4:1-3 calls us to test everything to make sure it is in the Spirit of the Lord. John 4:3 “This is the spirit of the antichrist that,as you herd, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.” It would seem to me John’s vision in Revelation was for the early church that was under tremendous persecution. The bride of Jesus, his church, was delievered to the early christian according to Tertullian a church father. So you are saying to believe John’s vision was to give a historical significance to God’s message of hope for the early christian’s would be in error? To assosiate Revelation’s with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D, the unvaling of the Christian church with the exception of the second coming) would be in error ? Why then did the early church believe this way?

Those are possible and accepted messages from Revelation. the Church has no issue with those being told by the Book. It is just that those are not mutually exclusive or the only possible Revelation contained.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I can respect what you stated, but then you think it would be in error to have a doctrine on books like, " The Lambs Supper" or “The End” by Dr.Scott Hahn ? I’m still perplex why God would not reveal full interpretation of the Book to his Church, which then give guidance. I’m I mistaken that the Catholic Church does take a stance against the idea of “The Rapture” that other Christian faith believe?

I have not yet read “The End” by Dr. Hahn, but “The Lambs Supper” is so dear to me that it is part of my conversion story. In that book, Dr Hahn points out, in a plausable manner, why there is no reason why all the defined positions listed in this thread couldn’t be true. Remember that we are experiencing a God who is outside of sequential time, and man’s linear world view. In some ways, I think the strong, presumptuous interpretations held by some Christian faith groups not only do not offer much more hope to God’s children, but some of the interpretations go so far as to take hope away, in essence.

God IS hope. God IS love. His mercy, and the love for his creation are boundless. A concept which is very difficult for man to comprehend as we are tainted by the world of men, whose hearts remain hardened to the Gospel to this day.

We would do well to concern ourselves with loving the Lord God with all our hearts and souls, and loving our neighbor as ourselves. Trust in the gift of Christ Jesus totured and crucified for our iniquity and sin. The one perfect sacrafice forever. The alpha and omega. If we can ponder with fascination and wonder, the incredible possibilities of our Father’s kingdom, without getting mired in predeterministic thinking, and heretical mental constructs, then it is a beautiful thing to meditate on the apocalypse. We should be very tentative regarding theologians who are intent on putting this grandest and most open ended book of our Lord’s majesty into the tiny boxes of man’s inadequate construction.

Peace,

Steve

 

[colliric]

I believe there has been a misunderstanding of were I’m coming from. I quest for full truth in the Sacred Scriptures. 1 John4:1-3 calls us to test everything to make sure it is in the Spirit of the Lord. John 4:3 “This is the spirit of the antichrist that,as you herd, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.” It would seem to me John’s vision in Revelation was for the early church that was under tremendous persecution. The bride of Jesus, his church, was delievered to the early christian according to Tertullian a church father. So you are saying to believe John’s vision was to give a historical significance to God’s message of hope for the early christian’s would be in error? To assosiate Revelation’s with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D, the unvaling of the Christian church with the exception of the second coming) would be in error ? Why then did the early church believe this way?

The early church did not nessecerily believe this way by the time revelations was written if you look to the traditional authorship date. The Church fathers provide evidence for the Apostolic Authorship having occured under the Reign of emperor Domitian well after 70AD.

The early church did not entirly associate Revelation with the destruction of the Temple or the neroian persecutions, if it did, why do the church father’s believe and attest it was written at least 20 years later? They don’t say it was supposed to be for only early christians at all, they say the complete opposite, that it’s for all christians.

The early church DID CORRECTLY associate Jesus own prophercy concerning the temple with their time, which is why they originally thought that way, but within the lifetime it had somewhat already changed.

The issue is that WE are supposed to take heart from Revelations when WE are in persecution(as it still occurs today), not just the early christians.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This still does not address my questions in my previous posting. If the Holy Spirit has not revealed in full Revelation, how can you add to it, when John clearly stated not to. Also, the other questions on what the early Church believed.

My question answers the subject line of your thread. Perhaps you can be specific as to which early Church belief you feel hasn’t been addressed. Perhaps start a new thread if the issue is off topic. But as to adding text to the book of Revelation (Rv 22:18), the Catholic Church has done no such thing.

 

[racing59]

My question answers the subject line of your thread. Perhaps you can be specific as to which early Church belief you feel hasn’t been addressed. Perhaps start a new thread if the issue is off topic. But as to adding text to the book of Revelation (Rv 22:18), the Catholic Church has done no such thing.

I thought this thread would have a lot more interjection by people of all faiths. What I feel has not been addressed is Tertullian writings that the New Jerusalem came down from heaven and was over Jerusalem for 40 days. Saints that died before Jesus Christ and after he raised up, they then were taken up. This is Scripture and a fact in the early church. Daniel’s writings were to be sealed up until the end of time ( Daniel12:4) yet we have read it for years. It is true Revelation was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., but prophetic writings can give historical significance to the beautiful word of God. Why would this not be the message being convey to a church suffering persecution until Constitine in 325 A.D.? Daniel most scholars agree was written for the Macabeen revolt and the end of the Mosaic age .My point is if there is no official doctrine on the Book of Revelation in its entirety than there can be no heresy or schism if some one is to take a stance on the Book. In order to have an heresy or schism there has to be an official doctrine true or false?
P.S. I said the Church add Revelation 21:1-5 later to the Vulgate,not Rev.22:18.

 

[notsmart]

All I did, was go to the library here, hit Rapture in the search, and this is the first result I got of many. I bet there are more, if I used other words to search it.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea3.asp

So where is the article wrong from your view?

I thought this thread would have a lot more interjection by people of all faiths. What I feel has not been addressed is Tertullian writings that the New Jerusalem came down from heaven and was over Jerusalem for 40 days. Saints that died before Jesus Christ and after he raised up, they then were taken up. This is Scripture and a fact in the early church. Daniel’s writings were to be sealed up until the end of time ( Daniel12:4) yet we have read it for years. It is true Revelation was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., but prophetic writings can give historical significance to the beautiful word of God. Why would this not be the message being convey to a church suffering persecution until Constitine in 325 A.D.? Daniel most scholars agree was written for the Macabeen revolt and the end of the Mosaic age .My point is if there is no official doctrine on the Book of Revelation in its entirety than there can be no heresy or schism if some one is to take a stance on the Book. In order to have an heresy or schism there has to be an official doctrine true or false?
P.S. I said the Church add Revelation 21:1-5 later to the Vulgate,not Rev.22:18.

 

[racing59]

All I did, was go to the library here, hit Rapture in the search, and this is the first result I got of many. I bet there are more, if I used other words to search it.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea3.asp

So where is the article wrong from your view?

I don’t quite understand which view you are asking me? If it is the Left Behind series futurist view I would have to say I decline this view. It is the very reason why I stop being an ***. Pastor in the Baptist church. My studies have lead me to believe John’s vision was one of hope for the church. The victory over evil has already been won by the Blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. We allow evil in the world only because of the absence of love. Other words our self centered visions for ourselves and not Christ will. The victory has already been achieved by his death and resurrection. It up to us to spread the Gospel of faith,hope,and love.

 

[notsmart]

I don’t quite understand which view you are asking me? If it is the Left Behind series futurist view I would have to say I decline this view. It is the very reason why I stop being an ***. Pastor in the Baptist church. My studies have lead me to believe John’s vision was one of hope for the church. The victory over evil has already been won by the Blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. We allow evil in the world only because of the absence of love. Other words our self centered visions for ourselves and not Christ will. The victory has already been achieved by his death and resurrection. It up to us to spread the Gospel of faith,hope,and love.

Oh, I see. I thought you were asking if there is a reason to reject the “rapture” the way some christians believe it to be.
I personally believe that there will be great suffering because there has not yet been a mass apostacy.
Yet, I think we are dangerously close to it now. We may be in the midst of a minor chastisement.
But, that is just a taste of what will come.
At the end of the great suffering, there will be a time of peace.

However, this is where I am unsure what happens next.

 

[racing59]

I thought this thread would have a lot more interjection by people of all faiths. What I feel has not been addressed is Tertullian writings that the New Jerusalem came down from heaven and was over Jerusalem for 40 days. Saints that died before Jesus Christ and after he raised up, they then were taken up. This is Scripture and a fact in the early church. Daniel’s writings were to be sealed up until the end of time ( Daniel12:4) yet we have read it for years. It is true Revelation was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., but prophetic writings can give historical significance to the beautiful word of God. Why would this not be the message being convey to a church suffering persecution until Constitine in 325 A.D.? Daniel most scholars agree was written for the Macabeen revolt and the end of the Mosaic age .My point is if there is no official doctrine on the Book of Revelation in its entirety than there can be no heresy or schism if some one is to take a stance on the Book. In order to have an heresy or schism there has to be an official doctrine true or false?
P.S. I said the Church add Revelation 21:1-5 later to the Vulgate,not Rev.22:18.

Another point I forgot to make is for those of you that say to have a doctrine on Revelation is putting it in a box. My understanding of a box in Sacred Scripture is the Holy of Holies, better known as the Tabernacle ( height, width, length). I think that’s a good place to be.