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

[Reuben_J]

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.

I guess I’ve been waiting for what you really want in this discussion. Regarding Revelation in Catholics’ perspective, most of it have been answered for you. I think they are quite clear, and anymore (name removed by moderator)ut may only confuse you.

If the above is how you take the Book of Revelation, then we have no quarrel with you. We are in complete agreement here. Now I am not sure what do you mean by doctrine. You seem to be asking for it. Are you a Baptist? Is it a must that you make a doctrine out of all Books of the Bible? If it is, can you share with us the doctrine that arise from the Book of revelation? Thanks.

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.

Forgive me for being rather dull. What do you mean by the above.

We don’t want to ‘domesticate’ Revelation (another funny word again for lack of better one) because it can have multi-level meanings. I think this was well-said by one poster earlier on. It should be a book of all time and holds true for all time. Some of the prime message like victory in suffering for the sake of Christ applies to Christians at all time. This is a great boost for the faith of early Christians considering the persecution that they went through. And it still is now.

I hope you are not one of those who use this Book to predict the future. My advice - don’t do it. Suffice it is for the Lord to tell us that we do not know the day or the hour when he will come. Suffice it is for us to always be ready when he come.

 

[M0nkey]

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.

Amen. You want to make sure you *always *choose the winning side.

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.

Well, the fulfillment of the written word is the presence of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we have the real presence in the tabernacle. Not to start a debate, but to clarify.

 

[benaiah]

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.

Hello Racing59,
Since this is in the NON-Catholic Religion section of this forum, I thought I’d throw my 2 cents worth out. My observation of some of the differences between how the Catholic Church views this book (Revelation) and how some Non-Catholics view this book, would best be described as Literal -vs- Non-Literal interpretation of the text. This would lead to a Millennial view of some type (ie. Pre, Post or Amillennial). In my readings of the early church fathers, the first 2-3 centuries, most had a literal interpretation of scripture (other than Origen) and a Premillennial view of Christ’s return. Augustine strongly advanced the allegorical view of scripture and remained the dominant way to interpret scripture until the 15th century (and the reformation). A resurgence of Premillennial thought started to reappear in the mid-nineteenth century and grew stronger as the 20th century saw 2 World Wars and Israel returning to it’s homeland in 1948. Thus, the book of Revelation, when viewed Literal and premillennial, compared with other scriptures, would be looked at as prophesy yet to be fulfilled. I don’t want to drift off post, but I thought I would share my observation of the different views of interpretation.
God Bless,
Benaiah

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

Well, first, there was early debate as to whether Revelation was Scripture at all in the first couple centuries as I understand it. I’m not sure what “historical significance” you think is missing from the first centuries though. And are you saying someone was accused of heresy because of an interpretation of Revelation?

And please elaborate. I did not know the Catholic Church added Revelation 21:1-5. Do you have a resource for this claim?

 

[Ed_Rand]

"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.

I think you read that verse wrong. antichrist is not just a one-time event. John’s generation was facing the spirit of antichrist, but yet the church will face the spirit of antichrist again in the future. There are a few verses in Revelation that say nearly the same thing. Think of the beast that was mortally wounded but yet lives again. Pagan Rome was mortally wounded by the early church. I would say that Revelation fortells the revival of that spirit of the antichrist, of pagan Rome.

Also, many would say that we yet face two “revivals” of the spirit of antichrist. Think of the following verse from Revelation:

“Five have fallen. One is, and the other has not yet come. … And the beast which was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition.”

One is= Pagan Rome–thriving at the time Revelation was written
other has not yet come= the revival that we yet face, after which satan will be chained for a thousand years
the eighth=the final coming of anticrist, when Satan is released for a short while following the millenium

There is a member of CAF named Spauling who has been very helpful in explaining this to me (he has the above verse in his signature…). Look him up! We have a lively end-times thread going in the back fence forum.

The bride of Jesus, his church, was delievered to the early christian according to Tertullian a church father.

 

[Ed_Rand]

As a general answer to the OP, I must remind you that, as someone pointed out earlier, the Catholic Church does have definite teachings regarding the end times and Revelation. They are in the Chatechism.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

paragraphs 675, 676, 677

 

[racing59]

I guess I’ve been waiting for what you really want in this discussion. Regarding Revelation in Catholics’ perspective, most of it have been answered for you. I think they are quite clear, and anymore (name removed by moderator)ut may only confuse you.

If the above is how you take the Book of Revelation, then we have no quarrel with you. We are in complete agreement here. Now I am not sure what do you mean by doctrine. You seem to be asking for it. Are you a Baptist? Is it a must that you make a doctrine out of all Books of the Bible? If it is, can you share with us the doctrine that arise from the Book of revelation? Thanks.

Forgive me for being rather dull. What do you mean by the above.

We don’t want to ‘domesticate’ Revelation (another funny word again for lack of better one) because it can have multi-level meanings. I think this was well-said by one poster earlier on. It should be a book of all time and holds true for all time. Some of the prime message like victory in suffering for the sake of Christ applies to Christians at all time. This is a great boost for the faith of early Christians considering the persecution that they went through. And it still is now.

I hope you are not one of those who use this Book to predict the future. My advice - don’t do it. Suffice it is for the Lord to tell us that we do not know the day or the hour when he will come. Suffice it is for us to always be ready when he come.

So may response to my last post I ask that all of you let me deal with them one at a time. I"m no longer in a Baptist based Church, I had issues with some of the teachings on Revelation. I do get Revelation is a multi-level meaning, the problem lies I guess with me, in fact it is my favorite Book in the Bible. I have study Revelation through Covenant theology and found it to be one of the most beautiful Books of the Bible. I also read a book by Dr. Massey H. Shepherd Jr.( Church of Divinity school of Pacific Berkeley, Ca. in titled “The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse.” In Shepherds book we associates Revelation ( Apocalypse) with Paschal liturgy. I have ask several priest about Liturgical worship in Heaven, their response to me is that “There is no Mass in Heaven, because there are no Sacraments in Heaven, they are for the people on earth. There is no Eucharist in Heaven, because it is a Sacrament.” This tremendously bother me because it was conflicted with my beliefs of the Pascal Liturgy in Heaven and the Wedding feast of the Lamb. Why did Manna come from Heaven in the Old Testament? Personally I have had dreams of my mother being at the Pascal liturgy in Heaven and receiving the Eucharist. That is my reasoning behind this thread to see if the Catholic Church took a doctrinal stance on Revelation. An if yes, what was their stance. To me a doctrine can be multi-levels, but still give guidance so there will be no abuse.

 

[racing59]

Amen. You want to make sure you *always *choose the winning side.

Well, the fulfillment of the written word is the presence of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we have the real presence in the tabernacle. Not to start a debate, but to clarify.

I agree!

 

[racing59]

Hello Racing59,
Since this is in the NON-Catholic Religion section of this forum, I thought I’d throw my 2 cents worth out. My observation of some of the differences between how the Catholic Church views this book (Revelation) and how some Non-Catholics view this book, would best be described as Literal -vs- Non-Literal interpretation of the text. This would lead to a Millennial view of some type (ie. Pre, Post or Amillennial). In my readings of the early church fathers, the first 2-3 centuries, most had a literal interpretation of scripture (other than Origen) and a Premillennial view of Christ’s return. Augustine strongly advanced the allegorical view of scripture and remained the dominant way to interpret scripture until the 15th century (and the reformation). A resurgence of Premillennial thought started to reappear in the mid-nineteenth century and grew stronger as the 20th century saw 2 World Wars and Israel returning to it’s homeland in 1948. Thus, the book of Revelation, when viewed Literal and premillennial, compared with other scriptures, would be looked at as prophesy yet to be fulfilled. I don’t want to drift off post, but I thought I would share my observation of the different views of interpretation.
God Bless,
Benaiah

I found many of the church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and St. Martin of Tours believed in a form of Millenarianism, that Revelation would be fulfilled within a thousand years. St. Gregory of tours speculated the end would come around 799 A.D. -806 A.D. I know later the Catholic Church rebuked Millenarianism. This is a subject for another thread on the early fathers.

 

[racing59]

Well, first, there was early debate as to whether Revelation was Scripture at all in the first couple centuries as I understand it. I’m not sure what “historical significance” you think is missing from the first centuries though. And are you saying someone was accused of heresy because of an interpretation of Revelation?

And please elaborate. I did not know the Catholic Church added Revelation 21:1-5. Do you have a resource for this claim?

The source I got about Rev. 21:1-5 being added later to the Vulgate was Dr. Scott Hahn’s tapes " The End". It is an argument actually for the Catholic Church’s authority. My issues was how can you add to a book if there is no doctrine on it? This question in part has already been answered, that passages were left out of the Vulgate and added in later, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[racing59]

racing59;4415614:

"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.

I think you read that verse wrong. antichrist is not just a one-time event. John’s generation was facing the spirit of antichrist, but yet the church will face the spirit of antichrist again in the future. There are a few verses in Revelation that say nearly the same thing. Think of the beast that was mortally wounded but yet lives again. Pagan Rome was mortally wounded by the early church. I would say that Revelation fortells the revival of that spirit of the antichrist, of pagan Rome.

Also, many would say that we yet face two “revivals” of the spirit of antichrist. Think of the following verse from Revelation:

“Five have fallen. One is, and the other has not yet come. … And the beast which was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition.”

One is= Pagan Rome–thriving at the time Revelation was written
other has not yet come= the revival that we yet face, after which satan will be chained for a thousand years
the eighth=the final coming of anticrist, when Satan is released for a short while following the millenium

There is a member of CAF named Spauling who has been very helpful in explaining this to me (he has the above verse in his signature…). Look him up! We have a lively end-times thread going in the back fence forum.

From my understanding, this union is only consumated after the second coming and last judgement.

Peace be with you all.

Was not Satan unleashed at the time of Jesus Christ? I thought the consummation of Christ and his Church happens when church members receive the Eucharist? I will have to check out the thread you suggest. I still think looking forward to a final antichrist seems to me to be a futurist view. My point was Matthew said his spirit was already in the world. Would you then say Revelation repeats itself through out the age of the church?

 

[racing59]

As a general answer to the OP, I must remind you that, as someone pointed out earlier, the Catholic Church does have definite teachings regarding the end times and Revelation. They are in the Chatechism.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

paragraphs 675, 676, 677

I have read your post and see what you are saying. I have questions on the CCC that I will have to save for another thread. After reading the CCC I see you do have a doctrine on the Second coming, but I still feel to keep free from abuse the Catholic Church, I would think, would have a full official teaching or doctrine on the whole Book. Such a teaching could be all inclusive on the many different levels of prophetic writing. Much confusion comes when you read Matthew 24:41-43, Matthew is discussing the second coming and he tells of one person taken up to Heaven and one being left behind on earth. I could not find anything in the CCC that address this Scripture. My in-tenet is not to be difficult, but to ask questions, then I too gain wisdom. I seem to be the only non Catholic asking questions on here. I have always found if you ask questions, then you learn.

 

[bpbasilphx]

but I still feel to keep free from abuse the Catholic Church, I would think, would have a full official teaching or doctrine on the whole Book.’’=

**Let me guess what lies behind your question:

You’re not a Catholic, but you’re presuming to say what doctine the Catholic Church should hold about Revelation.

Do I understand you right?**

 

[racing59]

but I still feel to keep free from abuse the Catholic Church, I would think, would have a full official teaching or doctrine on the whole Book.’’=

**Let me guess what lies behind your question:

You’re not a Catholic, but you’re presuming to say what doctine the Catholic Church should hold about Revelation.

Do I understand you right?**

Apparently you haven’t been following my questions on this thread. You have me all wrong. I have friends and family in various different faiths. I enjoy stimulating and intelligent conversations in which we don’t always agree, but we share knowledge. My search is to learn from all. I do not presume to tell Catholic Church what doctrine to have on Revelation, but I wish there was a clear doctrine. I read and heard a lot of Dr.Scott Hahn’s views, but then when I discuss it with different priest they have dismissed them. This is very confusing to me. That is why I think it is a same there is no clear doctrine so people can study and learn. I know what I believe, but I would never presume to tell any church what doctrine to have. If I wanted to do that I would start my own church.

 

[Reuben_J]

Apparently you haven’t been following my questions on this thread. You have me all wrong. I have friends and family in various different faiths. I enjoy stimulating and intelligent conversations in which we don’t always agree, but we share knowledge. My search is to learn from all. I do not presume to tell Catholic Church what doctrine to have on Revelation, but I wish there was a clear doctrine. I read and heard a lot of Dr.Scott Hahn’s views, but then when I discuss it with different priest they have dismissed them. This is very confusing to me. That is why I think it is a same there is no clear doctrine so people can study and learn. I know what I believe, but I would never presume to tell any church what doctrine to have. If I wanted to do that I would start my own church.

To answer the OP, Catholics do have a stance on the Book of Revelation, which have been explained. The fact that there is no specific doctrine per se on Revelation is by itself a doctrine / stance, if this is what you want.

I have ask several priest about Liturgical worship in Heaven, their response to me is that “There is no Mass in Heaven, because there are no Sacraments in Heaven, they are for the people on earth. There is no Eucharist in Heaven, because it is a Sacrament.” This tremendously bother me …

The priest was right. Eucharist is a Sacrament. Sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace. In other word, it is a vehicle to heaven. Once you got to heaven, you wouldn’t need it anymore, because in heaven as depicted by the imagery of Revelation, it is one mega worship where the saints are face to face with God. You already achieved what grace was meant for.

Personally I thought that this is as far as we should go in presuming what happens in heaven. The key word is - we see God. In order that any mortals can see him face to face we are made clean and are as white as snow. That’s why no Sacrament is required now for we are already washed and purified by the blood of the Lamb and are worthy to be in God’s presence in his abode.

 

[japhy]

Terulllian (one of the early fathers of the church, which I have seen post rely on in arguments on Tradition and Oral Tradition) said in his writings on the “Against Marcion” tell of the New Jerusalem coming done after the resurrection of Jesus and collecting the saints whom died before Jesus. The city was in the sky for 40 days early in the morning. Even seen by the pagans in the east. Matthew 27: 52-53 "tombs were open and the bodies of many of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the Holy City and appeared to many. I’m sorry, but that sounds like the first fruits being raptured to Heaven to me. CCC 117 “… thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.” Sounds like a New Jerusalem to me. So I would be in error to believe this as doctrine?

Have you read that part (Against Marcion, Book III, Chapter XXV) closely?
And the word of the new prophecy which is a part of our belief {this is, the Montanist heresy}, attests how it foretold that there would be for a sign a picture of this very city exhibited to view previous to its manifestation. This prophecy, indeed, has been very lately fulfilled in an expedition to the East. {He means that of Severus against the Parthians. Tertullian is the only author who mentions this prodigy.} For it is evident from the testimony of even heathen witnesses, that in Judæa there was suspended in the sky a city early every morning for forty days. As the day advanced, the entire figure of its walls would wane gradually, and sometimes it would vanish instantly. { or “on a near approach.” } We say that this city has been provided by God for receiving the saints on their resurrection, and refreshing them with the abundance of all really spiritual blessings, as a recompense for those which in the world we have either despised or lost; since it is both just and God-worthy that His servants should have their joy in the place where they have also suffered affliction for His name’s sake.
Tertullian fell out of the Catholic communion when he embraced the Montanist heresy, which produced the prophecy he referred to.

 

[Ed_Rand]

Ed Rand;4418775:

I still think looking forward to a final antichrist seems to me to be a futurist view.

It may be a futurist view, but it is also a teaching of the church. There will be a final trial under antichrist. This is Church teaching.

 

[Ed_Rand]

Much confusion comes when you read Matthew 24:41-43, Matthew is discussing the second coming and he tells of one person taken up to Heaven and one being left behind on earth.

It does not say taken up to heaven. It says one will be taken and one will be left. This could easily apply to persecution. There is a passage in revelation that could very well be related:

Anyone destined for captivity goes into captivity. Anyone destined to be slain by the sword shall be slain by the sword. Such is the faithful endurance of the holy ones.–Rev.13:10

The pre-tribulation rapture as described in the “left behind” series is nonsense. Even before I understood Catholic teachings, it never made sense to me. Why would God take the best Chrisians at the time they are needed most? Also, why would scripture then give the highest place to those who had not been raptured, but to those who had triumphed through martyrdom?:

*Then I saw thrones; those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image nor had accepted its mark on their foreheads or hands. They came to life and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.–Rev. 20:4 *

Now that I understand Catholic teaching, I believe that notions of a pre-trib. rapture are very misleading. The Church teaches that we will one day follow Christ in His passion. This will be our triumph, just as it was with Him.

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”–Matthew 16:21-23

 

[racing59]

I would like to thank everyone who responded to this thread! You all did an excellent job on answering many of the questions I had. You have really given me something to reflect on. Thank you again for presenting you case in an intelligent manner, it is greatly appreciated !

 

[colliric]

Once again I’d like to voice opinion here. Apocalpyse is a vision given to a Prophet who has been removed from time and spritually and perhaps physically shown the endtimes.

It is dangerous for such Apocalyptic visions to be defined as meaning certain concrete things because we may not be 100% right because it is a vision of endtimes given to someone who has been taken out of time and shown the bigger cosmic picture.

The Church has the correct position on it, we have to be very careful not to define certain things because we may be wrong. Only Saint John and our Lord know what the vision was of, it is for us to speculate on, but not dogmatically define beyound what the text openly indicates. Which the Church has already decided correctly upon.