Posted on 11/19/2018 7:43:58 AM PST by Salvation
Monsignor Pope Ping!
What I find most amazing in Revelation is that rocks and mountains are falling on the people and they still refuse to repent. What does that tell us?
Once again Pope, Charles shows us that Jesus would never leave us without a true pope.
Since we are now more than a year into Revelation Chapter 12, it seems prudent to put aside any nit-picking about the identity of some of the characters and focus on the part about “hold fast to what you were taught when you first believed.”
Look around you at the people who are leaving all churches and saying they don’t believe in God.
I don’t sign on completely to any of the traditional interpretive approaches to Revelation (preterist, historicist, futurist, dispensationalist, etc.) and take them all with a grain of salt. I think an eclectic approach is probably more correct. But, more and more I think the idealist approach rings the most true. I think the dispensationalist take is the least persuasive.
The Paradise Fire may not have been rocks falling on the people.
I wonder if they still disbelieve or believe?
For later.
Msgr. Pope does not mention the Mark of the Beast. Hmmm....
I’m just as amazed. The Word tells us “as in the days of Noah” and “as in the days of Lot” that the level of evil had become so great, and so is the case now, as Jesus told us it would become. We now have scoffers and blasphemers, rabid haters of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, among other things He said they would do, refusing to repent. Satan of course hates the Lord, and all who refuse Christ are allied with Satan. There is no grey area, no “middle ground”; you are either for Him, or against Him.
They would have no other god except themselves, them on their throne—even as they watch the world around them being hit by one horror after another.
An overview does not always have all the details such as the one you mention.
What the RCC author of this piece says nothing about, is the amillennialist interpretation of Revelation, of himself and his church.
So, of course he’s going to say Revelation is not about the end of the world, it is about “right now.” Amillennialists believe the church - i.e., the papacy - is supposed to be ruling the world...”right now.”
Up until the Protestant “back to the Bible” movement, their Amillennialism held sway, while they ruled Europe. But, since Revelation does not support their totalitarian interpretation, their view no longer holds sway.
Rome also is in error on Ch 12 being about Mary. If they insist on this it undoes their nonbiblical position on the Immaculate Conception.
But you know what? This is a really, really good overview. One of the best and most concise I have ever seen.
Personally, it speaks to my condition.
Kindly stop right there. The rest of your comment is apparently about what you "think" he said or what you "wish" he said, or what you "expected" him to say, because this is not what he said.
Re-read this paragraph and see if certain words jump out at you:
"While many suppose that the Book of Revelation is merely about the end of the world, it is about far more; it is also about what is happening right now. It was not written only for the end of the ages but for all ages."
As you can see, he is not excluding an end-of-the-world interpretation; he's saying it's not that only. He's saying it's all that AND MORE.
Interestingly,the Church has not dogmatically defined the issue of whatever-millennialism, pre, post, 'a', pre-trib, mid-trib, what-a-long-strange-trip, etc. Saints have a legitimate liberty to take, and HAVE taken, a range of positions, and you might want to keep that in mind.
If there is "a" Catholic perspective, it is the one given by Peter, who writes,
"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved,
that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slow about his promise
as some count slowness,
but is forbearing toward you,
not wishing that any should perish,
but that all should reach repentance. . . .
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved,
what sort of persons ought you to be
in lives of holiness and godliness,
waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God,
because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved,
and the elements will melt with fire!
But according to his promise
we wait for new heavens and a new earth
in which righteousness dwells.
Therefore, beloved,
since you wait for these,
be zealous to be found by Him without spot or blemish,
and at peace"
(2 Pet. 3:8–14)
I will not argue further about this.
Here I bow out of the discussion.
Can I have an Amen?
Nope.
Nope
Yep.
For starters...No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma [Immaculate Conception] can be brought forward from Scripture as noted per the catholic encyclopedia. Karl Keating, a Roman Catholic apologist and founder of catholic answers, admits in a debate with James White the Immaculate Conception is not found in Scripture.
However, even this from the CE is at odds with the following from Catholic Answers.
Catholic Answers gives this explanation for the dogma [emphasis mine]:
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit [recall the Catholic Encyclopedia says No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma [Immaculate Conception] can be brought forward from Scripture], Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
However, that is just what we have...the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception does indeed contradict Scripture.
This is evidenced in Revelation 12.
1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. Rev 12:1-2 NASB
Roman Catholics claim verse 1 is about Mary....however, if v1 is about Mary then v2 has to be about Mary as well based on the structure of the sentence. This is where the Roman Catholic argument for this being about Mary runs into conflict.
If this is about Mary, v2 clearly notes "she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth."
In Genesis 3 we have the punishment for the woman for her sin which is imputed to the remainder of women.
16To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 NASB
We also have this from Catholic Straight Answers in direct contradiction of Revelation 12:2.
The troublesome part is the middle– Mary’s virginity in giving birth to Christ. We remember that one of the sufferings inherited because of original sin is that of “child bearing pains”: The Lord God said to Eve, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16). Since Mary was free of original sin by her immaculate conception, she would consequently be free of “child bearing pain.”
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-mary-was-ever-virgin/
The Roman Catholic is now in a dilemma as there is a clear contradiction of Rome's position on this issue with Revelation 12:2.
Further, as part of the punishment the husband is to rule over the wife.
In Matthew we see Joseph take Mary into his household and she becomes his.
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” 24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25 NASB
In this passage we also see the Roman Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary discredited as the text indicates he, being Joseph, kept her a virgin until Jesus was born. After that they were free to consummate the marriage.
The Roman Catholic will likely try to appeal to the undefined "unanimous consent" of the ECFs. However, this appeal also fails as noted by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).
These are not light weights in Roman Catholicism.
For the Roman Catholic to continue to perpetuate this false dogma they have to read into Scripture something that is not there, ignore what is in the Scripture and then selectively cite only those ECFs favorable to their position.
That is eisegsis....reading something into the text that isn't there to support a belief.
Roman Catholicism hasn't defined a great deal of things in regards to the texts. Some estimate ~30 verses or so have been dogmatically defined.
That's pretty sad coming from the group claiming to have been around 2000 years and that claims to have given us the Bible.
On one hand you tell us the RCC has had no particular millennial view of Revelation, while on the other hand you use a passage from 2 Peter, to prove just the opposite. A very particular view, used by Amillennialists to prove there can be no coming of Christ (his second coming) to this earth to reign for a thousand years...because the earth will be “burned up.”
You can’t have it both ways.
Miriam/Mary brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. The angel Gabriel told her this. If one pays close attention to what God told the angel to say, it becomes obvious. There is no other woman qualified except Miriam/Mary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.