Revelation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What is the Catholic belief of the Book of Revelation? When I was away from the Catholic Church I learned the Protestant view of the Rapture. But I don't know what the Catholic Church teaches about this. Could you please explain this for me or direct me to somewhere I can get answers.

Thank you.

-- Melanie (design465@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003

Answers

Hi, Melanie. First of all, Catholics don't properly call it "the Book of Revelation". We call it "The Apocalypse". Second, the Catholic Church has never taught something called "the Rapture" would happen; on the contrary, Catholic teaching & revelations regarding the End Times it seems would not allow a "Rapture" to happen. Catholics believe there will be three days of darkness during which time the devils will roam the earth, and that this will be a time of punishment both for the evil and for the good. Thirdly, I suggest you get a Catholic Bible and read The Apocalypse (I think the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible is best, i.e. most accurate).

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Melanie. Welcome to the forum!

Psyche was right to tell you that Catholics don't believe in the recently developed notion of the rapture that is held by some protestants.

However, Psyche was incorrect to say that we don't refer to the biblical book as "Revelation." (You realize that if you have been attending Mass lately and heard a reading from the book being announced.) I'm guessing that Psyche's preferred Bible translation is an older one, in which the book is referred to as "Apocalypse." We are certainly free to call it that, since that name comes from the very first Greek word in the book -- "Apokalupsis." But the reason we can call it "Revelation" is the fact that "Apokalupsis" means "Revelation."

I am going to give you a link to a page on which "Revelation" (as translated in the (revised) New American Bible can be seen at the Internet site of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. You'll see that there is an introduction to the book that you can read. It is brief and will not answer all your questions, but it will be a starting point for you. Here is that link.

Please follow up with more questions now, if you wish.

God bless you.
John
Here is a great source of information about issues that are probably on your mind. From that general "Catholic Answers, Inc" page, I was able to get to this specific page about "the rapture" and Catholic belief.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.


Oh, yes, I see it now. I originally overlooked Psyche's mention of her Douay-Rheims version of the Bible. That version, which went through several revisions between about 1600 and 1950, contains an older style of language (similar to the protestant King James Version). I mentioned the New American Bible, from which the current lectionary has been prepared. Another bible approved for the use of Catholics is the Jerusalem Bible. The Bible that seems to get the most frequent praise from prominent orthodox Catholics today (in newspapers, magazines, and on EWTN Catholic television) is the "Revised Standard Version -- Catholic Edition" -- which is available from Ignatius Press under the name "The Ignatius Bible."

Psyche was right to advise you to get a Catholic Bible, because, if you now have a protestant Bible (KJV, NIV, NASB, etc.), it is probably missing seven books.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.


Psyche, you wrote:
"Catholics believe there will be three days of darkness during which time the devils will roam the earth, and that this will be a time of punishment both for the evil and for the good."

Can you please point me to the Church document that teaches this? I don't believe that I have ever come across it before. It follows then that not all "Catholics believe" this.
Is it possible that a literal belief in "three days of darkness etc" is not an actual Church teaching, but the interpretation of some verses by one or more Catholics whose writings you happen to have read and agreed with?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.


The "three days of darkness" business comes not from an interpretation of scripture, but unfortunately from one or more supposed apparitions of Mary, none of which to my knowledge has been approved by the Church. There is a cultic following of this "private revelation" among a small group of Catholics, and a book written on the subject. This is something for orthodox Catholics to steer well clear of.

If you want to get the flavor of this, here is one of several websites devoted to it: http://olrl.org/prophecy/daysdark.html

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2003.



That's not totally accurate Paul; there's actually more than a handful of Saints that spoke of this idea at different time periods of the Church.

Dupont does take some liberties here and there in his presentation of Catholic prophecy, but the substance of this particular prophecy is not proper to him.

For orthodox Catholics to steer clear of? Then certain saints of the Catholic Church must have not been orthodox Catholics. It's not a Church teaching, no, and it's not at all any sort of required belief, but it does in fact have it's basis in the lives of the Saints.

The typical disclaimer would be helpful, which is that there are people who seek a sign instead of really seeking the truths of the Catholic Faith, using signs and wonders to eclipse what should be real devotion, sure... but that shouldn't rule out the role of prophecy and authentic Catholic mysticism.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2003.


Melanie, if you want a really, really scholarly treatment of the Book of the Apocalypse, one of the best is written by a Father H.B. Kramer called The Book of Destiny.

It was originally published in 1955, though it was I believe the result of decades of research by this priest.

Nihil Obstat: J.S. Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus; Imprimatur: Joseph M. Mueller, D.D.; Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, January 26, 1956.

In other words, it's totally legit and nothing of cultishness.

Neither is the gift of prophecy anything of cultishness. It is one of the charismata of the Holy Ghost, while yet it has no order to rule.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2003.


Jmj

Melanie,
A much more recent book about the Book of Revelation -- by a noted scripture scholar and professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville (Dr. Scott Hahn) -- is "The Lamb's Supper." It shows how the Mass on Earth is our mystical entry into the "heavenly liturgy" that can itself be seen being celebrated in the pages of Revelation.

It is available here in text or audiocassette form.

Please be aware, Melanie, that the Church has not published an "official handbook of interpretation" for Revelation (or any other book of the Bible) -- by which it commands us to believe one and only one thing about the various words, symbols, and events portrayed in each chapter and verse. How then are you to understand? When you have understood the basic framework of Catholic doctrine, as explained to you in the new Catechism, then you will be able to read Revelation (or any other book of the Bible) and draw truths from it as God moves your mind and soul -- always within the parameters set by the Catechism's doctrines. If you are ever inclined to interpret a passage in a way that contradicts a Church doctrine, you can know that the inclination is not from heaven. But you don't have to rely only on your own reading and attempts to understand. You can also turn to commentaries by orthodox Catholic scholars, such as Fr. Kramer and Dr. Hahn.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.


I forgot to thank you, Paul M, for presenting the facts about the "three days of darkness" -- which is not from public revelation, nor something that "Catholics believe," but something that some individuals have described from alleged private revelations.

I just remembered another book, Melanie. A wonderful convert, Paul Thigpen, has recently written, "The Rapture Trap." You can read about it here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.


"I forgot to thank you, Paul M, for presenting the facts about the "three days of darkness" -- which is not from public revelation, nor something that "Catholics believe," but something that some individuals have described from alleged private revelations."

You're welcome. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2003.



Interestingly, there was a discussion on the forum regarding Scott Hahn exactly one year ago on and around the same date, the feast of the Immaculate Conception.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2003.

The issue of the 'Three Days Darkness' is actually taken from prohecies of a few approved sources such as Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (Rome), Padre Pio (Capuchin Priest, Italy), Père Lamy (Priest, France),Sister Rosa Colomba Asdente (Italy), Marie Julie Jahenny (France)and Saint Hildegard (Germany)

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you, Andrew, for making a key distinction -- by referring to the people you mentioned as "approved sources" -- i.e., that they were loyal Catholics. The Church's "approval" of these good people as "Servant of God," "Venerable," "Blessed," or "Saint" does not mean that each thing that they said or wrote is "approved." And even a saying or a writing (from a private revelation) that is "approved" is not to be understood as something certain, but only as being not incompatible with the Catholic faith. We can believe it or not, as we prefer.

Some of the things that these (and other) good people said or wrote (about their alleged private revelations) may by now have been judged to be compatible with the Catholic faith.
Some may have been judged not to be compatible. [Remember that most saints did not enjoy a gift of infallibility.]
But some of the things they said or wrote (about their alleged private revelations) remain in an unclear status, because the Church has not yet given us a ruling about them.
I'm not sure if this "three days of darkness" remains in this last, unclear status, but I suspect so. My own personal practice is to ignore all such things that are in this "unclear status."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.


Take a look at the name "JOHN PAUL II" in Latin... From: http://www.remnantofgod.org/666.htm

John) IOANES = 1 (Paul) PAVLVS = 60 (II) SECVNDO = 605 -T o t a l- 1 + 60 + 605 = 666

-- Anonymouse (thewordoftruth@ourchurch.com), December 09, 2003.


anonymous,

too bad that paul does not translate to pavlvs, and niether does second translate to secvndo. in fact, the closest translation to second in latin is secundani, but that only yeilds a measly little 662, so its not good enough for you anti catholic lies...

furthermore, secundani CANNOT even apply to the pope, since its the word for soldiers of the second legion. the CORRECT word, two, tranlated into latin is duo, which puts your grand total AT (drum role please) ... 561.

AS IF THAT WERENT ENOUGH... even using the poor translations of John, and Paul, from the website, anyone with half a wit in latin can tell you that when it comes to roman numerals, U=0. so what happened? well, using the translation PAULUS the fundies changed the U's to V's so that their numerology would make sense. but since we already dispelled the myth of secvndo being an accurate translation of the word second anyway, i guess the point is really moot.

too bad you protestant fundy types are too ignorant of latin too know youre accidently spreading lies, lies which are meant to destroy the reputation of another and hence are sinful in nature.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 09, 2003.



Even though I have already deleted the above inane post by Anonymouse from the forum at least ten times today (as well as receiving it privately by email), I'll let it stand this time, only because paul's utter demolition of it was so concise, irrefutable and entertaining. :-)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 09, 2003.

Without the understanding of Scriptural things that the Church has retained throughout the centuries, the Protestants are going to be at a near total incapacity to approach the book of the Apocalypse. It might sound rude, but it's true... if they fail to glean certain basic doctrinal realities from the Gospels, then how are they going to approach a work as mystifying as the Apocalypse.

What's going to happen is that they are going to see whatever it is that they are want to see, and perhaps provide for themselves a false sense of confirmation in what the feel is true but is not.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2003.


Excellent, Paul H. (I got that piece of junk via e-mail too).

The official translation -- right from www.vatican.va -- is this:
"Ioannes Paulus Secundus"

So the bigot could transform this into either ...
I-oannes (1) + pau-L-us (50) + se-C-un-D-us (600) = 651 ...
or ... I-oannes (1) + pa-V-L-V-s (60) + se-C-V-n-D-V-s (610) = 671

Sorry, bigot, the pope is not the "antichrist." But a woman prominent in your Adventist history (Ellen Gould White) may qualify:

e-L-L-en (100) + go-V-L-D (555) + VV-h-I-t-e (11) = 666 !!!

JFG
PS: The use of "V" in place of "U" was common in carved Latin inscriptions, because it was so harder to carve two lines with an arc than just two lines.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.


We have another Jeanie on the Board !!!!!!!!!

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

Ha Ha

Good one J. Gecik. That should teach them to mess...

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ