Mark of the Beast
#97
(12-19-2009, 07:45 PM)unknown Wrote: One of the points in my posting was that this view debunks the Third Secret of Fatima.

Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian to five popes, is quoted as saying, "In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."
He didn't say that the falling away happened nearly two millenniums earlier.  So, here we have one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century saying that the "falling away"
predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2 has yet to occur.   And as already mentioned, Pope JPII seemed to agree with this.

Fr. Malachi Martin is quoted as saying on national radio to millions of listeners:  "Well, the prophecy of Fatima -- without going into my background in this matter -- the prophecy of Fatima is not a pleasant document to read. And it is not pleasant news. It implies, it doesn't make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress, a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics, and laity in the Catholic Church, that the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church, that is the organization of parishes, dioceses, archbishops, bishops and cardinals, the Roman bureaucracies, and the chanceries throughout the world, unless that is totally disrupted, and rendered null and void, the Third Secret makes no sense."    Also, in response to a question by a caller asking if the Third Secret involved a final pope coming under the control of Satan, Martin replied in the affirmative.

And Cardinal Ratzinger apparently didn't reject this view until later on, either.  His comments on Fatima in 1984 were quite different from those he made in the '90's and in his 2000 commentary to the supposed release of the Third Secret.  At that time, he didn't appear to be speaking from the "preterist" perspective.

It's quite clear to me that the Church has been wrestling with this issue for a long time.

This "view" really does not debunk the Third Secret.  If you re-read my post, most Catholic partial-preterists believe that the Book of Revelation, albeit being primarily fulfilled in the 1st century, could very well be dual-prophetic - that is, it could be fulfilled once again at a future time.  You speak negatively of the "preterist" perspective.  Well, to maintain Augustinian Amillenialism, you really HAVE to be a preterist!  Chapter 20 doesn't allow you to have it both ways.  That chapter will either make or break your millenial stance.  Either you believe that the "Beast" and the "False Prophet" were on the scene BEFORE Satan was bound, and we are living in the times of his bounded imprisonment via the millenium - OR, you believe that Satan has yet to be bound and the millenium is in the future.  The Catholic Church (and pre-conciliarly, I might add) has declared that the tenets of premillenialism "cannot be taught safely."  Also, the preterist position in interpretting Revelation places the greatest light on the establishment of the "Kingdom of Heaven" upon earth, which is the Catholic Church.  This "view" gives the most glory to our religion, the one and only true religon of Jesus Christ.  I believe that after these horrid times when the Church is renewed and doesn't have the guilt-complex it has now, this will be brought to the full attention of all the faithful (to do so in these days would equate the Catholic Church as the Kingdom of Heaven, which according to the "spirit of Vatican II" is a no-no, for the Church of Christ only subsists in the Catholic Church, just one of many Christian denominations striving for truth while all other heretical sects are a part of the "soul" of the Church of Christ.)

The part about a final pope coming under the control of Satan is what I don't understand.  Is he talking about THE final pope, or just one of the final popes?  I guess this could be legit concerning a couple post-conciliar popes, but according to other latter-day prophesies, the last pope is supposed to be a VERY holy pope ("Peter the Roman" or the "Angelic Shepherd") who will work hand in hand with a "Great Monarch" who will usher in an age of renewal of Catholicism across the world.  Of course, this period of renewal comes after a period of vast tribulation, beginning with a great apostasy (which we are seeing now), and culminating in a "Great Chastisement."  When the "Chastisement" is over (i.e the "Three Days of Darkness), then a period of peace will be had (The "Age of Mary.") Then after this period, it shall be the time of the "Antichrist."

I am of the opinion that the Book of Revelation is dual-prophetic - BUT, I also acknowledge that it was perfectly fulfilled with the coming of the Kingdom caused by the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.  There is just way too much Scriptural internal and external evidence to support this.  I believe that the Apocalypse of St. John is an outstanding work of perfection.  The primary fulfillment in our eyes is the end of the Jewish Age and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of Christ - the Catholic Church upon earth.  The secondary fulfillment could be the end of the Ages (the end of time) and the Coming of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity.  But do I believe that all of the Apocalypse will be included in the last times -- NO, I do not.  I believe it will be a poetic inverse of the prophesies.  The problem with people today, just as with the Pharisees of Christ's time, is that they are looking for too literal of a fulfillment.  It was prophesied that Elijah would come before the Messiah.  The Jews were awaiting the actual Elijah, but Jesus states that Elijah DID come, but not literally, but in the person of St. John the Baptist.  We must not look for the literal, especially in Apocalyptic literature that was a tool of the Hebrews to use elaborate symbols to portray spiritual and physical realities.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Mark of the Beast - by Munda_cor_meum - 11-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 11-21-2009, 07:20 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by AntoniusMaximus - 11-21-2009, 07:50 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by kimbaichan - 11-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by SoCalLocal - 11-22-2009, 12:48 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Stubborn - 11-22-2009, 07:47 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Petertherock - 11-22-2009, 03:35 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 11-23-2009, 05:24 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by savienu - 11-23-2009, 09:43 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 11-27-2009, 08:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 02:21 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 11-30-2009, 03:16 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 10:32 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by SoCalLocal - 11-30-2009, 11:39 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 12:36 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 11-30-2009, 01:56 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 11-30-2009, 06:02 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 11-30-2009, 10:44 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Iuvenalis - 12-01-2009, 01:20 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-01-2009, 02:49 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-01-2009, 08:52 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-01-2009, 10:31 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by RalphKramden - 12-01-2009, 11:12 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by CrusaderKing - 12-01-2009, 02:15 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-01-2009, 03:24 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-01-2009, 06:28 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Iuvenalis - 12-01-2009, 06:40 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by CrusaderKing - 12-01-2009, 07:48 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by CrusaderKing - 12-01-2009, 07:54 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-01-2009, 08:43 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Munda_cor_meum - 12-01-2009, 09:03 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-01-2009, 09:27 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-02-2009, 12:42 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 11:20 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 11:35 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 12:22 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 01:11 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-02-2009, 01:41 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-02-2009, 06:55 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 07:05 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 07:15 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-02-2009, 07:26 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 08:55 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 10:08 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 10:13 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-02-2009, 10:18 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 11:24 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-02-2009, 11:30 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-03-2009, 01:28 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-03-2009, 06:31 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-03-2009, 06:54 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-03-2009, 07:21 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 07:37 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-03-2009, 09:17 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 09:29 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-03-2009, 10:14 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Louis_Martin - 12-03-2009, 10:26 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 10:26 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-03-2009, 10:32 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by James02 - 12-03-2009, 11:17 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-03-2009, 11:32 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-04-2009, 12:52 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 02:20 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 03:23 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-04-2009, 07:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 08:41 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-04-2009, 09:04 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 12:58 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 12:59 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 01:23 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by IrishCowboy - 12-04-2009, 02:08 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-04-2009, 02:16 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-04-2009, 07:30 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-05-2009, 12:41 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-05-2009, 01:16 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-05-2009, 01:29 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-05-2009, 02:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-05-2009, 02:04 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by INPEFESS - 12-05-2009, 02:07 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by John C - 12-05-2009, 04:02 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-05-2009, 04:08 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by DJR - 12-05-2009, 09:00 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-09-2009, 07:35 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by ggreg - 12-12-2009, 06:56 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-13-2009, 10:45 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by 59zvc - 12-14-2009, 02:23 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Historian - 12-14-2009, 02:40 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by 59zvc - 12-14-2009, 04:11 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-15-2009, 05:35 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 12-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by unknown - 12-19-2009, 03:30 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-19-2009, 06:10 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by unknown - 12-19-2009, 07:45 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 12-19-2009, 08:01 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Foligno - 01-13-2010, 06:08 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 01-13-2010, 08:12 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Arun - 01-14-2010, 07:48 PM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 01-15-2010, 08:04 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by churchesoffortwayne - 02-17-2010, 06:30 AM
Re: Mark of the Beast - by Nic - 02-22-2010, 09:41 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)