It’s not the final end of the world scenario. It’s the end of an era. Many events have yet to take place described in the Bible on a geo-political level, as spoken by the prophets.
Luke:21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken as captives to all the Gentiles; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles* are fulfilled.r
Hi HeavenlyHosts, do you mean things on the "geo-political level" like this stuff that Jesus said to "be not troubled" about in Matthew 24?: 6 And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places: 8 Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows. The main events in Catholic prophecies of the end times are not "geo-political" in nature. The geo-political events are precursors to the main events that Jesus discusses later in Matthew 24 and the Church teaches in CCC 675, 676, 677. Yes, the Antichrist, the false leader of the Counterfeit Catholic Church will try to convince the world that we need convert to a new religion of "human fraternity," in which traditional sin will be tolerated and the only actual sin will be intolerance of others' sins. That will be the new, false gospel of "Peace and Security" that the Antichrist, a false religious leader, will preach to Catholics and "the world." Most Catholics will be deceived by this "religious deception" (CCC 675) that offers "men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth" (CCC 675). That, HeavenlyHosts, is the Catholic Magisterium concerning the end times. The "geo-political" crisis will be used as the lever to catapult Catholics into apostasy (falling away) from the Truth. The Antichrist will preach religious indifferentism and woke-ism. And most Catholics will follow him because they will not want to rock "the boat." The Antichrist will especially hate Catholics who insist on traditional liturgy, doctrine and practices because, he will say, those people will impede progress toward "human fraternity." They commit "the sin of backwardism" as someone famously said recently. After a few years of this nonsense, Jesus will "come on the clouds" and deliver those who were faithful to the Truth during the period of religious persecution by the agents of the Counterfeit Catholic Church and the Antichrist. That will be the time of the Warning (aka Second Coming), when Jesus will come to "judge the living and the dead." The Period of Peace for the Elect will occur after that. The Wrath/Chastisement will be experienced by those who followed the false gospel of the Antichrist and refuse to repent. This is why it is so important for people to identify the Antichrist and the Counterfeit Church before it is too late. Bad habits are hard to overcome. Many "Catholics" are currently following the wrong teaching ("the hermeneutic of rupture" in the words of Pope Benedict XVI). In order to remain "faithful" to Jesus, they must follow, instead, the perennial, Apostolic teaching ("the hermeneutic of continuity"). That is the core issue. The geo-political stuff is a distraction and part of the Antichrist's plan to deceive Catholics.
Hi Sam. The "gentiles" in that verse is a reference to the "false brethren," the neo-Protestant, false "Catholics" who follow the "hermeneutic of rupture" warned about by Pope Benedict XVI. They are the "modernist catholics." They are those who think that there is such a thing as "the sin of backwardism." They are the promoters of a new, "synodal" Church that listens to "the world." The word "Gentile" comes from the Latin word "gentium," meaning "the nations." The "gentium" are all of those OUTSIDE true "outside the Church." So those rejecting the unchangeable dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church would be "outside the Church," and therefore, by definition, "Gentiles."
One commentator referred above to the 'abuses of the Inquisition'. No serious study of the Inquisition had been taken until the BBC commissioned various non-Catholic historians to study the archives of the Inquisition and various related contemporary records in 1994. They concluded that the Inquisition was, for its time, a model tribunal and that the judges involved showed great reluctance to impose a death penalty which was carried out in surprisingly small numbers. The Inquisition also declined to hear charges of witchcraft while the north European protestants were busy burning thousands of eccentric old ladies. Timewatch - The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition (BBC 1994) - YouTube - Please watch and share (it opens with various comic references to the Inquisition, don't let this put you off) I also noted one commentator referring to the Church as the 'Roman Catholic Church'. All Catholics should be aware that this name was first used when the Anglican 'church' was founded to differentiate their 'Catholic Church in England' - the Anglican Church from what they considered to be the 'other Catholic Church' ours. There is only one Church and it is universal not Roman, as the Anglicans pretend. We are Catholics.
Many things that we think we know are actually false. For example, modern philosophers side-stepped scholasticism, rather than disproved it. Many people are under the impression that we cannot prove the existence of God without appealing to authority.
I've read that Kurt Goedel, the formerly atheist mathematical genius, refined Anselm's proof to a fairly high degree of airtightness. I don't think absolute proof of God's existence is possible and that this is intentional on His part. Even the universe seems to be designed to refute certainty, despite the wishful thinking of the positivists and determinists-to take two examples, the aforementioned Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We might not be able to completely and absolutely prove God's existence, but we most certainly can demonstrate it to a far higher degree of probability than we can do with anything else.
I think that every supernatural event has an aspect of duality so that we have the option of choosing faith or scientific rationalism; and I think God allows it so that like Abraham our faith may be credited as righteousness.
The Church teaches that we can know of God’s existence in the light of human reason. Most people just find it hard to equate the unmoved mover with the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
I agree that this end times a-la-Protestant is clearly a deception. But HH has a good point. Your description of the end times, I truly believe is correct, but what about the end of the World scenario? The Bible mentions the last Antichrist appearing again at the end of the world just before the Last Judgment. Is it possible the third temple scam would be then?
Hi Byron. The way I understand it, at the Second Coming, the 7th Trumpet, there will be a split. God will judge. Those who lived according to His will are granted, the Rest, the Period of Peace. Those who did not live according to His will are punished, experiencing the Wrath of God, this is a temporal event in "the world." So this "splitting-off" happens at the Second Coming, as best I can tell. It is all very mysterious. St. Paul calls it a "mystery" in 1 Corinthians 15:51. Compare the discussion in 1 Corinthian 15 and 1 Thessalonians chapters 4 and 5. Also, see St. Thomas Aquinas's Pauline commentaries (at www.aquinas.cc). When you say "the Bible mentions the last Antichrist...," can you tell me specifically what Bible verses you are talking about? I just want to make sure we are discussing the same thing. I also want to correct myself on my theory about the Warning being identical to the Second Coming. As I have been reading and thinking more, the events sound different to me now. The Warning is more of a revelation of our sins. The Second Coming is described as a judgment for our sins. The Warning must come before the Judgement (Second Coming), and then there needs to be a period of time when people can correct their actions before they are judged. Otherwise it wouldn't make logical sense. So having said that, I have a new possible solution to the mysterious "letter A" that describes "the Warning." I now think the word might be "apocalypse" rather than "adventus." Sorry for any confusion I might have caused.
Revelation 20:3, - “The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he must be released for a little while.” “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10) So, the beast and false prophet had already been in the lake before the devil?
If we read Revelation without preconceptions we would read that after the long age of peace the devil is loosed again one last time, but the beast and the false prophet are before the age of peace. The Church has not condemned Millinerianism as a heresy (if you say so, please quote the canons) but said that people should not teach it. This is a matter of discipline and obedience, not doctrine, so it could turn out to be true, even if nobody expects it or teaches it.
Which is why Maria Esperanza and Father Gobbi said there was an in between Coming before the last Coming of Christ. My question is will the supposed third temple be built during the last Coming of Christ (Last Judgment - end of world scenario)? Or is the last time Satan is released for a short while have nothing to do with the Jews and the third temple? I just feel when the Warning comes everybody will know who the Messiah really is. Curiously, Fr Blount mentions the Muslims and Buddhists and all Christian Churches uniting and converting in a huge way after the Warning, but he doesn’t mention the Jews.
I don’t know. I don’t think so. If it would happen, Satan could deceive the children, just as he has deceived so many today into not believing in the great flood. Here is a link on millenerinism: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm
Here is a paper I found earlier that led me to believe that it has never been condemned, though Pius XII said that it cannot be taught safely. If we cannot prove it’s a heresy it is an unorthodox view. By the same token if the Church never formally condemned it, it might still be true, imo.
