The Rapture

[kafka]

I am rare among Catholics in that I do agree with an idea of the Rapture, yet it is very different than the speculations of Fundamentalist eschatology. I also believe in the Millenium, yet not the old heretical version. I would like to open this thread as a debate/discussion about the Rapture and perhaps eschatology in general.

I would like this to be an honest and intellegent discussion, without any cheapshots on those of our Christian brothers who might believe in the Rapture. The idea of the Rapture cannot be completely dismissed since it is clear Saint Paul refers to it, and so it is our goal to discover the correct interpretation, as Christians have attempted to do so in the past. Here is the famous passage from Thessalonians in the Latin Vulgate and Douey Rheims:

{4:15} Hoc enim vobis dicimus in Verbo Domini, quia nos, qui vivimus, qui residui sumus in adventum Domini, non præveniemus eos, qui dormierunt.
{4:15} For we say this to you, in the Word of the Lord: that we who are alive, who remain until the return of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

{4:16} Quoniam ipse Dominus in iussu, et in voce Archangeli, et in tuba Dei descendet de cælo: et mortui, qui in Christo sunt, resurgent primi.
{4:16} For the Lord himself, with a command and with the voice of an Archangel and with a trumpet of God, shall descend from heaven. And the dead, who are in Christ, shall rise up first.

{4:17} Deinde nos, qui vivimus, qui relinquimur, simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Christo in aera, et sic semper cum Domino erimus.
{4:17} Next, we who are alive, who are remaining, shall be taken up quickly together with them into the clouds to meet Christ in the air. And in this way, we shall be with the Lord always.

So, the word Rapture is derived from the Latin phrase "simul rapiemur" translated as "shall be taken up quickly together." Rapiemur is from the verb rapio, hence the english work Rapture.

It is clear, Sacred Scripture is asserting a future event. The question is in what context does this event occur, and what is meant by "shall be taken up quickly together with them into the clouds to meet Christ in the air" ???

[Guest]

great post, will be curious to read the replys.

[mommas_boy]

I remember learning in my high school NT class that one cannot read Revelation quite so literally.

Revelation was not a book of prophecies in regard to the future. Indeed, much of what is described in Revelation has already happened, according to my theology teacher. He stated that [b]Revelation was written in code[/b], addressed to Churches throughout the Roman empire. The fanciful language helped to ensure that the epistle would pass through the Roman censor and reach its destination. Any attempt to derive much meaning beyond this is treading into unknown waters.

The true message of Revelation? We as Christians are called to live a life of earthly oppression, but we are not to fear, for Heaven is our reward. Revelation's purpose was to encourage early Christians (and us too; Lord knows that we live in difficult times as well!) to persist through their torments.

Not sure how much of this is truly relevant to the current discussion, however. Therein exists the entirety of my knowledge of Catholic Eschatology.

[mommas_boy]

Not sure if you've seen this (I haven't had the chance to really read it yet), but have a look.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp"]Catholic Answers: Rapture[/url]

With imprimitur.

[kafka]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1689041' date='Oct 29 2008, 11:31 PM']Revelation was not a book of prophecies in regard to the future. Indeed, much of what is described in Revelation has already happened, according to my theology teacher. He stated that [b]Revelation was written in code[/b], addressed to Churches throughout the Roman empire. The fanciful language helped to ensure that the epistle would pass through the Roman censor and reach its destination. Any attempt to derive much meaning beyond this is treading into unknown waters.[/quote]
The Book of Revelation is relevant to this discussion. It is interesting in that there seems to be no census among theologians, about the overall meaning of it, yet the consensus of ordinary Christian clergy and laity throughout the centuries is that it is indeed a prophecy of the End Times/Tribulation. I am not sure exactly when arose the thought that Revelation refers to the time of the Roman Empire and Nero, or that it refers to the Liturgy of Heaven, or that it represents events which reoccur in a circular way throughout history. I strongly disagree with all these views.

I think your theology teacher oversimplified Revelation. Much of it is written in a figurative language (almost like a parable of Christ), yet other passages seem to be written direct and explicitly, that in my opinion one cannot contradict by placing a completely historical, spiritual or ambiguous interpretation too. One clear sign of this is the direct reference to specific figures, deeds of these figures, and events predicted such as the False Prophet, Antichrist, Enoch, Elias, the tasks assigned to the Angels such as Saint Michael, the annihilation of Rome, the Second Coming of Christ, the drying up of the River Euphrates, the destruction of 2/3rds of the human race, etc. These things could not possibly have occurred, yet Revelation speaks of them, therefore they must occur sometime in the future.

So in my opinion and interpretation, the book of Revelation expresses a sequence of events (not necessarily in chronological order) of the End Times, beginning with the first seal and culminating in the Return of Christ. In a spiritual level of meaning I think Seven Churches Saint John wrote about refer to a future time when the Church is composed of seven parts after the Orthodox and Protestants reunite with the Catholic Church.


I will take a look at that article on the Rapture tomorrow, and make some comments about it and some general thoughts about the imprimatur.

I guess we are getting a little off topic but I will eventually come back to my ideas about the Rapture.

Edited October 30, 2008 by kafka

[Archaeology cat]

I don't really see the problem with believing the dead will be resurrected and the living will be "caught up" to Christ at the Second Coming. It was my understand that the Church agreed with that. . .

The problem I had/have with the Rapture as taught by certain Protestant groups is that it would precede the Second Coming, and no one would know what was going on. That, and that, as I was taught at least, it would be pre-trib, which I reject, and pre-millenial, which I also reject.

[abercius24]

We Catholics don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Rapture" because, as you have shown, it is clearly taught in the scriptures. We don't call it the "Rapture", though, because we don't see it as its own event. We see that as being one of many events that will occur as part of the Second Coming.

The disagreements we find with Fundamentalists is what happens AFTER the "Rapture." When Fundamentalists speak of the Rapture, what they are really trying to emphasize in their teachings are those people they believe will be "Left Behind." They believe those who are not taken with Christ will suffer through the Great Tribulation and the reign of the Anti-Christ while trying to rebuild the Church from the Scriptures admist the chaos. Where we disagree substantially, though, is how our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters believe that those who were "Raptured" will later be brought back to earth to fight the Battle of Argamageddon alongside Christ. Then they believe those returning saints will live for 1000 years in peace [u]on Earth[/u] under the physical reign of Christ, during what they call the Millenium. What this all implies, though, is a "Third Coming", an idea we completely reject.

We believe the Great Tribulation and the Reign of the Anti-Christ will come someday, but we do not believe that we Christians will be exempt from experiencing it. In fact, St. Louis de Montfort believes that the greatest saints the world will ever know will live during those times. And there will be a Battle of Armageddon at some point thereafter, but how that battle will be fought -- whether it be physical or spiritual -- nobody knows for sure. But we know that it ALL ENDS with the Second Coming. When Christ takes the righteous up, there is no coming back. The earth will be consumed with fire thereafter. Our true home -- our New Earth -- will be heaven.

One other distiction in our Catholic teachings is our position with the Adventist movement. Adventists believe that the major events of the End Times (the Great Tribulation, the Reign of the Anti-Christ, the Battle of Armegeddon, the "Rapture", etc.) are imminent. This movement includes the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), the Fundamentalist Christians, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of other pseudo-Christian churches. They get this idea mainly from the urgent words of Paul who implies that the end is near: "Maranatha Lord Jesus" or "come soon Lord Jesus". Because they believe the "Rapture" will occur at any moment, they evangelize with great urgency, many times rushing people along in their conversions (frankly speaking).

We reject the notion that anybody knows when the Final Events of the End Times will occur. We believe Paul was speaking about other events in mankind's history that would imminently occur -- particularly the Destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus prophesized the Destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24 -- particularly the destruction of the Temple. It makes sense then, that Paul would have expected Christ's words to be fulfilled in his imminent future. What many don't understand, though, is that Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic literature (especially that found in the Bible) use events from the End Times when describing the prophesized end of a particular civilization. You'll find very similar apocolyptic language in the Books of the Prophets when describing the destruction of Egypt, Babylon, and the North Israelite Kingdom. The reason for this is to teach us of the whole purpose for the end of things -- that God is the only one in control and the only one left for us to hold on to. These "mini" End Times events -- which occur throughout our history -- prepare us for the Final End of the World, which for the majority of us will be our own death.

Edited October 30, 2008 by abercius24

[Guest]

just found a great catholic link for this
really good read
[url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/5.3/rapture.htm"]http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/5.3/rapture.htm[/url]

[eagle_eye222001]

[url="http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download"]http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download[/url]

The audio mp3 on the rapture is towards the bottom. It is about an hour long but you can download it for free and listen to it in parts.

Note also that this group is Catholic although the name suggests just Christian.

[thessalonian]

I think you have pre-trib rapture confused with rapture. Though the Church does not use the term it does teach that body and soul will be taken up with Christ at the end of time. This is "rapture". Are you saying you don't believe in the reuniting of body and soul and their being taken in to heaven? If that is the case then you don't believe in Church doctrine. Also the Church teaching is in general that the millenium is now.

Rapture
1. ecstatic joy or delight; joyful ecstasy.
2. Often, raptures. an utterance or expression of ecstatic delight.
3. the carrying of a person to another place or sphere of existence.
4. the Rapture, Theology. the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to earth.

[kafka]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1689167' date='Oct 30 2008, 05:40 AM']We Catholics don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Rapture" because, as you have shown, it is clearly taught in the scriptures. We don't call it the "Rapture", though, because we don't see it as its own event. We see that as being one of many events that will occur as part of the Second Coming. . .[/quote]
Based on the verse of Thessalonians I dont see how the Rapture could be many events. It is clearly expressing one event which will occur at the Return of Christ (though other events will occur after his Return)

I agree with some of your points, but the main thing I disagree with is how you present them. Most of eschatology falls under the realm of speculative theology, yet you tend to speak as if for the entire Church as if this is definitively what we believe, when in truth only a few truths of the End Times/Tribulation have been infallibly or non-infallibly taught by the Magisterium.

For several reasons based in Sacred Scripture, I disagree that the End of the world will occur at the Return of Christ. Maybe we can get into this more later, but for now I want to stick to the topic of the Rapture.

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1689195' date='Oct 30 2008, 09:13 AM']I think you have pre-trib rapture confused with rapture. Though the Church does not use the term it does teach that body and soul will be taken up with Christ at the end of time. This is "rapture". Are you saying you don't believe in the reuniting of body and soul and their being taken in to heaven? If that is the case then you don't believe in Church doctrine. Also the Church teaching is in general that the millenium is now.[/quote]
How could I be confused when I havent even shared my views on the Rapture yet? And do you think I am daft or bold enough to reject the general resurrection? As far as the Millenium is concerned I dont want to go there yet. Let's stick to the Rapture for now.

[abercius24]

[quote name='kafka' post='1689447' date='Oct 30 2008, 06:47 PM']Based on the verse of Thessalonians I dont see how the Rapture could be many events. It is clearly expressing one event which will occur at the Return of Christ (though other events will occur after his Return)

I agree with some of your points, but the main thing I disagree with is how you present them. Most of eschatology falls under the realm of speculative theology, yet you tend to speak as if for the entire Church as if this is definitively what we believe, when in truth only a few truths of the End Times/Tribulation have been infallibly or non-infallibly taught by the Magisterium.

For several reasons based in Sacred Scripture, I disagree that the End of the world will occur at the Return of Christ. Maybe we can get into this more later, but for now I want to stick to the topic of the Rapture.


How could I be confused when I havent even shared my views on the Rapture yet? And do you think I am daft or bold enough to reject the general resurrection? As far as the Millenium is concerned I dont want to go there yet. Let's stick to the Rapture for now.[/quote]

I meant to say that the Second Coming consists of many events, one of which is the "Rapture".

And Eschatology is speculative to a point, but any teaching of the Church must be rooted in Sacred Tradition -- that which is taught by the Church Fathers and by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Most "popular" speculation on these matters (especially from our Fundamentalist Dispensationalist brothers and sisters) cannot be attributed to Sacred Tradition whatsoever. And what I stated earlier does follow both infallible Church pronouncements -- particularly those that reject the heresy of Millenarianism -- and the most common Eschatological teachings of the Church Fathers and accepted Church theologians.

But thessalonian (the Phatmass member) is correct. The Church teaches that the Millenium is now. There is nothing to come back to after a "Rapture" if that is true.

Edited October 31, 2008 by abercius24

[kafka]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1689475' date='Oct 30 2008, 08:39 PM']And Eschatology is speculative to a point, but any teaching of the Church must be rooted in Sacred Tradition -- that which is taught by the Church Fathers and by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. . . And what I stated earlier does follow both infallible Church pronouncements -- particularly those that reject the heresy of Millenarianism -- and the most common Eschatological teachings of the Church Fathers and accepted Church theologians.

But thessalonian (the Phatmass member) is correct. The Church teaches that the Millenium is now. There is nothing to come back to after a "Rapture" if that is true.[/quote]
I disagree with your definition of Sacred Tradition. According to Dei Verbum Sacred Tradition is the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation. The Church Fathers may (or may not have) transmitted Sacred Tradition, but Sacred Tradition is not contained in their writings and teachings.

Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium does infallibly and non-infallibly teach with authority, drawing from Tradition and Scripture.

The heretical form of Millenarianism stems from the idea of heretics that Christ is not God and therefore He can only possess an earthly kingdom. So after He Returns, His would be an earthly king and the benefits would be sensual pleasures, and the like.

Other than that nothing has been condemned or positively taught by the Magisterium as heretical as far as speculations of what the Millenium might be. Some theologians (including the Fathers) have speculated that it is now, which in a sense is true, yet some also have speculated that it is a time of piece and holiness after the Return of Christ, where Christ ascends back into Heaven a second time and reigns from the Holy Eucharist.

I dont understand your statement that there would be nothing to come back to after the Rapture.

[abercius24]

[quote name='kafka' post='1689571' date='Oct 30 2008, 10:50 PM']I disagree with your definition of Sacred Tradition. According to Dei Verbum Sacred Tradition is the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation. The Church Fathers may (or may not have) transmitted Sacred Tradition, but Sacred Tradition is not contained in their writings and teachings.

Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium does infallibly and non-infallibly teach with authority, drawing from Tradition and Scripture.

The heretical form of Millenarianism stems from the idea of heretics that Christ is not God and therefore He can only possess an earthly kingdom. So after He Returns, His would be an earthly king and the benefits would be sensual pleasures, and the like.

Other than that nothing has been condemned or positively taught by the Magisterium as heretical as far as speculations of what the Millenium might be. Some theologians (including the Fathers) have speculated that it is now, which in a sense is true, yet some also have speculated that it is a time of piece and holiness after the Return of Christ, where Christ ascends back into Heaven a second time and reigns from the Holy Eucharist.

I dont understand your statement that there would be nothing to come back to after the Rapture.[/quote]

I think you misunderstand the role of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium. Vatican I proclaimed that the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium are in fact infallable. These teachings consist of the ordinary and continuous teachings of the Bishops who are in union with the Pope. This is true because the Holy Spirit continuously teaches through the Bishops by virtue of their ministry in passing on Sacred Tradition throughout the centuries. And the Church Fathers are in fact part of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium, so those teachings of theirs that are part of Sacred Tradition are also infallible. So the weight of the Father's teachings -- especially those they held in common -- is much heavier than what you may believe.

And I disagree with your understanding of the Church's position on Millenarianism, but I'll have to do some research so I can post some sources.

And my statement about there being nothing to come back to is that, if the Millenium is in fact now, then it certainly would also occur later. Otherwise there would be two Milleniums. And the only reason for Christ and the Saints to return to earth after the "Rapture" would be for the Millenium to occur thereafter.

I should also say that when one reads the Father's teachings on Eschatology, one doesn't get the idea that the End Times will be as complicated as most people today lead us to believe. I believe the complication people have today is more sourced in others trying to make a name for themselves so they can publish more books.

Edited November 1, 2008 by abercius24

[Slappo]

I'd just be careful saying that the writings of the Church Father's are infallible. While indeed the ordinary magisterium does have infallibility, it must be in union with the other bishops. The USCCB, although a part of the ordinary magisterium... is (thankfully) not infallible.

[kafka]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1690227' date='Oct 31 2008, 08:50 PM']I think you misunderstand the role of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium. Vatican I proclaimed that the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium are in fact infallable. These teachings consist of the ordinary and continuous teachings of the Bishops who are in union with the Pope. This is true because the Holy Spirit continuously teaches through the Bishops by virtue of their ministry in passing on Sacred Tradition throughout the centuries. And the Church Fathers are in fact part of the Universal and Ordinary Magesterium, so those teachings of theirs that are part of Sacred Tradition are also infallible. So the weight of the Father's teachings -- especially those they held in common -- is much heavier than what you may believe.

And I disagree with your understanding of the Church's position on Millenarianism, but I'll have to do some research so I can post some sources.

And my statement about there being nothing to come back to is that, if the Millenium is in fact now, then it certainly would also occur later. Otherwise there would be two Milleniums. And the only reason for Christ and the Saints to return to earth after the "Rapture" would be for the Millenium to occur thereafter.

I should also say that when one reads the Father's teachings on Eschatology, one doesn't get the idea that the End Times will be as complicated as most people today lead us to believe. I believe the complication people have today is more sourced in others trying to make a name for themselves so they can publish more books.[/quote]
I have a decent understanding of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It teaches infallibly when the Pope and the Bishops throughout the world have taught the one and same doctrine from the Deposit of Faith of faith and morals, definitively to be held by the faithful, over the course of some length of time. It usually occurs through the daily witness and prreaching of the Popes and Bishops or in some cases it might be expressed in documents. It is never exercised apart from the Pope. If the Pope or better yet successive Popes never taught a particular teaching then it cannot be a part of the Universal Magisterium.

The problem is it is difficult to discern when a teaching falls under the infallible Universal Ordinary Magisterium, since there are no clear criteria established.

So, the Fathers would first have to be Bishops (which most of them were) and their teachings would have to also be taught by the Popes, and other Bishops throughout time and place. And so their teachings passed down to us have to be examined each on their own. Theoretically, if their was a consensus among the Fathers on a particular teaching, yet the a majority of Bishops in union with the Pope never taught then, it would still not be an infallible teaching of the Universal Magisterium. That being said, it is obvious their teachings are valuable to the Church.

There is one more problem. Some of the Fathers teaching was speculative theology, and some of their theological points were wrong. Saint Augustine was obviously wrong about some points, so it is nice to put things in perspective. Also the Father's lived a long time ago. As the Church passes through time She plunges deeper into truths of the unfathomable Deposit of Faith and comes up with new insights.

As far as Millenarianism is concerned, I'd like to see what you can come up with. Basically all I've found is that some of the early Church Fathers and theologians speculated about it, but never came to a consensus. There were a few straggler heretics who thought it would be a kingdom of sensual pleasures after Christ Returns, but obviously this is heretical. Then the theologians for the most part stopped speculating about it and it has really never been preached by Popes and Bishops. Therefore in my opinion it is an open question of speculative theology.

I think we are in the living the Millenium now in a spiritual sense, yet based on several passages of Sacred Scripture I truly think there will be a literal Millenium after Christ Returns. I wouldnt mind sharing all these passages and commenting on them, but this post is getting long, and we'll see where the discussion goes.

Edited November 1, 2008 by kafka

[CatherineM]

The problem I have with the study of Revelation generally, or some of the issues it raises, specifically, is that it seems an area that can be easily misinterpreted. Let me explain. I would not want a first year Biology student engaging in cloning, first year Physics students designing rockets to carry men to Mars, or first year Chemistry students designing nuclear bombs. To me, Revelation is the Advanced Quantum Physics of the bible. There are so many things that one could and should study first. Revelation, just as it is in the bible, should be studied last, after a thorough grounding in Sacred Scripture at the University or Graduate level, and then only under a well qualified instructor.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1690329' date='Oct 31 2008, 10:40 PM']The problem I have with the study of Revelation generally, or some of the issues it raises, specifically, is that it seems an area that can be easily misinterpreted. Let me explain. I would not want a first year Biology student engaging in cloning, first year Physics students designing rockets to carry men to Mars, or first year Chemistry students designing nuclear bombs. To me, Revelation is the Advanced Quantum Physics of the bible. There are so many things that one could and should study first. Revelation, just as it is in the bible, should be studied last, after a thorough grounding in Sacred Scripture at the University or Graduate level, and then only under a well qualified instructor.[/quote]
I do agree that Revelation can be difficult to interpret. It takes time to understand it.

I disagree that one would need necessarily need a University or Graduate level degree to come to an good understanding of Revelation or for that matter any other book of the Bible. To me this is implying scholarship should be placed over grace and faith, in studying, teaching and interpreting the Bible, which has never been the case in the life of the Church.

Knowing the fundamental teachings about Sacred Scripture such that it is infallible, total inspired, and inerrant, as well as the two levels of meaning, namely the literal and spiritual levels is something any modern Catholic can learn apart from the University. For those willing, the fundamentals are not all that difficult to learn, and even if one is not familiar with fundamental theological teachings, he is still welcome, lead by grace and faith, nay even mightily encouraged by the Church to delve into the profound depths of Scripture.

An advanced education may or may not assist the faithful in understanding Scripture. A majority of modern scholars and theologians have gone astray from truth. Errors have even entered into so called Orthodox Universities. Therefore, it is sufficient to learn the fundamentals of Scripture from Sacred Tradition, what Sacred Scripture itself asserts about itself, and the Sacred Magisterium, which is available to any willing Catholic apart from the University.

In the end, grace and faith are most important. It is quite possible that somewhere an unlearned person, who is holy, has a deeper understanding of Scripture than the most learned theologian on earth. For,

"He will direct the mild in judgment. He will teach the meek his ways." (Psalm 24:9)

Edited November 1, 2008 by kafka

[abercius24]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[quote]675 [b][u]Before[/u] Christ's second coming [u]the Church[/u] must pass through a [u]final trial[/u][/b] that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of [b]the Antichrist[/b], a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

676 [b]The [u]Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape[/u] in the world every time the claim is made to realize [u]within history[/u] that messianic hope which can only be realized [u]beyond history[/u] through the eschatological judgment. The Church has [u]rejected[/u] even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of [u]millenarianism[/u],577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism[/b].578

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 [b][u]The kingdom will be fulfilled[/u], then, [u]not by a historic triumph[/u] of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only [u]by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil[/u][/b], which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 [u][b]God's triumph[/u] over the revolt of evil [u]will take the form of the Last Judgment[/u] after [u]the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world[/u][/b].581

680 [b][u]Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church[/u][/b], but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.

681 [b]On [u]Judgment Day[/u] at the [u]end of the world[/u][/b][u][/u], Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.

682 [b]When he comes at the [u]end of time[/u] to [u]judge the living and the dead[/u][/b], the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.[/quote]

The Catechism clearly teaches that the Church will in fact endure the Great Tribulation. And it teaches of an Anti-Christ to come as part of this Tribulation, be it a single fleshly "Messiah" or a general movement of secularist fervor. And it further teaches that a millenial reign in any earthly political/historical form is heresy. Moreso, the Catechism warns of the scenario where those who support or encourage a millenial reign will likely find themselves [u]aiding and supporting the reign of the Anti-Christ himself[/u].

And the Catechism teaches that the full reign of the Kingdom exists AFTER the Last Judgement, which in context clearly happens after the end of the world.

And I should also make note that the Catechism is the main resource for Ordinary and Universal teachings in the Western Church, which has been approved by the Pope himself, and which contains the infallible teachings of the Church in an abridged form.

Edited November 1, 2008 by abercius24

[Guest Jon]

[color="#000080"]Oh my goodness, it is a sunny day - and I have so much to do - I must read every word of your posts tonight ----
May I say that I am on another Christian Forum - and I have talked about this subject.

I really have a problem - so I have decided to simply put Rev on a shelf for now ----so many other insights in other NT sections that are pressing for me...I have a problem with the fact that no one seems to know who this "John" was that even wrote Rev. let alone had a dream!

Apparently many scholars, theologians - secular,Prot and Cath - can not definitively say who "John" was. Can you? - Please, tell me ----please.
I, naively thought many years ago that it was St. John the Beloved... - not so. I've gotten movies out of the library to research college professors of the NT and Theology. There were so many "Johns". Oy-vay.sp?

Because of this present confusion ---Rev is on a shelf.

I have read so many things on the Rapture. One insight presented that: Of course not, - it doesn't mean the actual flesh and bones will be "raised"- what use is the flesh in Heavan- it is a Spiritual Dimension ----it has been so misinterpreted. I'm sorry or was that the Resurrection of the Dead ----the sunny day is calling me ----75 in Colorado today Nov 1 --- but you get my meaning-don't you ----apples and oranges ----flesh=3rd Dimension -----spirit - Supernatural Dimension --God is Spirit.

I'll be back, thank you for your time,bless you all,
Jon[/color]