Poll: Do you consider Malachi Martin a trustworthy source?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
62
0%
0 0%
15
0%
0 0%
32
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Malachi Martin: a trustworthy source?
Quote: author=Nic link=topic=3444570.msg33652546#msg33652546 date=1322953650]
Concerning "kingdom" language in the New Testament, it is quite apparent, if one actually reads what is being said, what is taking place.  Here are just a few examples:

"The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2)

"Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?" (Matt. 3:7)

"The axe is already laid at the root of the trees." (Matt. 3:10)

"His winnowing fork is in His hand." (Matt. 3:12)

"The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17)

"The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 10:7)

"You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23)

"...the age about to come." (Matt. 12:32)

"The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds." (Matt. 16:27)

"There are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:28; cf. Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:2
7)

Where in any of these Scriptural excerpts does the idea come that the Kingdom of Heaven wasn't VERY, VERY near to the Apostles?  It was imminent, the language demands it.  It is evident from the Scriptures that the "parousia' of Christ was his spiritual coming to open heaven for all mankind who die, or have died, in the appropriate state.  The "Kingdom of Heaven" is just that - it is Heaven opened up to mankind.  When did this occur?  It occurred in 70 AD, when Christ came "upon the clouds of heaven," an apocalyptic symbol of divine judgment, upon unbelieving Israel (God the Father came "upon clouds" several times in the Old Testament - it is a spiritual coming in judgment, thus Christ came "in the glory of His Father" as mentioned in Matthew 16:27, which also notes that Jesus was "about to come"). This is what the book of Revelation is about, the New and
Eternal Jerusalem replacing the Old, carnal Jerusalem.

Until that point in time concerning the merits of Christ in the 1st century, mankind was not redeemed form "Sheol" or "Hades," otherwise known as "Death."  Jesus died and went to Sheol, and there He proclaimed the good news to the Old Testament Saints that the Kingdom of Heaven was "at hand" for them, and that He was "going to the Father" "to prepare a place for them."  He was the firstfuits of the resurrection. 

This is the resurrection spoken about many times in the Scripture - the spiritual resurrection, and is the "first resurrection" mentioned in the book of Revelation - the resurrection of the soul to the life of glory in Heaven.  Since there is the denotation of a "first" resurrection, we know that the "second resurrection" is the resurrection
of the actual body, which every soul will attain.  The "second death" is just that, the death of the newly resurrected body of those who will be cast into Hell at the end of time.

Of course, Jesus was right.  Some standing before Him didn't taste death until the Son of Man came into His Kingdom in Heaven.  One of those was St. John:

Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" (John
21:20-23)

It is quite evident that the vast majority of "coming" references in the New Testament do not concern Jesus' final coming to close out history, but of His very imminent "coming" to initiate the Kingdom of Heaven, which was the parousia of Christ.  "Parousia" in the original Greek language simply means "presence."  Thus the spiritual presence of Christ in His Kingdom in Heaven began in 70 AD when, as Daniel states:

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days  and was presented before him.  And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13,14)

Therefore, the "parousia" of Christ was a spiritual coming in judgment upon unbelieving Israel, for Jesus "came upon the clouds of heaven," "in the glory of His Father," but more importantly it was a spiritual
coming to the "Ancient of Days," God the Father, Whom Christ presented Himself to, and God the Father gave Jesus His Kingdom in Heaven.  The Catholic Church is indeed a part of that Kingdom, being the Church
Militant - so it can be said that the Kingdom of Heaven is amongst us.

There is an undeniable sense of imminence in the New Testament concerning the coming of the Kingdom and the end of the age.  The writers of the New Testament thoroughly and clearly believed that THEY were living in the "last days," and they were.  They were living in the last days of the old age, the Jewish Age, the age when mankind was not allowed admittance into heaven.  A new age was upon them, the age of the Kingdom of Heaven, and they often spoke about the glory of the "age to come," which was very imminent (was "close," upon them," at hand, "at the very gates," etc.).

Of course, all of this "coming" language used to explain the imminent, spiritual 1st century "coming" of Christ could possibly be a type for the final coming of Christ to close out history, but we cannot make assumptions.

Hi Nic!   :)

Thank you for all of your many quotes concerning what some term

Quote:"kingdom" language in the New Testament,

and also for your definition of

Quote:"Parousia" in the original Greek language simply means "presence."

Yes and No.

Why?

Quote:Parousia (Gr. presence, arrivalIt denotes the second  coming of Christ at the end of time when He shall judge the living and the dead.  ("The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary", Compiled and Edited
by Albert J. Nevins, M.M., Imprimatur + Jerome D. Hannan, Bishop of Scranton, November 28, 1964, Grosset & Dunlap, Parousia, p. 431, column 1; emphasis added).

Furthermore,

Quote:Parousia (Gk. parousia, "presence" or "arrival") ..... The almost entire absence of the Parousia from the Johannine writings is a problem. It is called the epiphaneia (1 John 2:28) which Christians await, and the glorified Jesus is represented as saying that He comes quickly (Apoc. 3:11;  22:20)....  on the hypothesis that Jn is a later composition [N.B. Tradition says the Gospel of Saint John was written in about 101 A.D.], he [Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist] did not speak of the Parousia because at his time it was no longer regarded as proximately imminent....  (John L. McKenzie, S.J., "Dictionary of The Bible", Imprimatur + Cletus F. O'Donnell, J.C.D., Vicar General, Archdiocese of Chicago, February 18, 1965,  p. 638, column 1; p. 639, column 1; emphasis added).

This last source concludes by saying:

Quote:A world catastrophe, which the Parousia and the judgment are, must indeed elicit images, but they should be understood as such.  One may affirm that Jesus not only asserted that the time of the Parousia is unknown, but also that He [Christ] uttered no concrete and detailed description of its external features.  (John L. McKenzie, S.J., "Dictionary of The Bible", Imprimatur + Cletus F. O'Donnell, J.C.D., Vicar General, Archdiocese of Chicago, February 18, 1965,  p. 640, column 1; emphasis added).

It is well to remember:

Quote:But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.  (2 Peter 3:8; emphasis added).

Nic, I am wondering what relevance, if any, you impute to your above citations to describe anti-Christ and its reign of terror for 3 1/2 years?

The Apocalypse gives some interesting data about anti-Christ.

Ultimately, the Second Coming of Christ, the actual Parousia is not any kind of an exclusive "Spiritual" event - it takes place physically, in this world.

Quote: Thus the spiritual presence of Christ in His Kingdom in Heaven began in 70 AD when, as Daniel states:

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.  And to him was given dominion and glory
and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13,14)

On the contrary:

Quote:Ver. 13.  Heaven.  Christ appeared [was born] about sixty years after the subversion of the Syrian monarchy.  Yet these expressions literally refer to his second coming.  Mat. xxvi. 64.  C. --- He had the form of man, as he had the nature.  M. --- He is clearly predicted.  by his power antichrist is overthrown.  W.

Ver. 14.  Destroyed.  The eternal dominion of Christ could not be expressed in stronger terms.  He seems to allude to them, Mat. xxviii. 18.  C.  (Rev. George Leo Haydock [1774-1849], "Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary", Old Testament, Daniel, Chapter VII, verses 13-14; emphasis added).

Based upon the above interpretation for verse 13 by Father Haydock, it is clear that this has nothing to do with the Jews in 70 A.D., but with anti-Christ being overthrown - judged -  by the Just Judge, Jesus Christ in the real world..

Here again, this has everything to do with the real world in a real way, not a merely "spiritual" exercise of whatsoever kind.

Quote:11   And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and with justice doth he judge and fight.
12   And his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems, and he had a name written, which no man knoweth but himself.
13   And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD.
14   And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15   And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty.
16   And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written:  KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17   And I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that did fly through the midst of heaven:  Come, gather yourselves together to the great supper of God:
18   That you may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of tribunes, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all freemen and bondmen, and of little and of great.
19   And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war with him that sat upon the horse, and with his army.
20   And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him, wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast, and who adored his image.  These two were cast alive into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone.
21   And the rest were slain by the sword of him that sitteth upon the horse, which proceedeth out of his mouth; and all the birds were filled with their flesh.  (Apocalypse 19:11-21; emphasis added.)

Therefore, the text itself tells us that this is not a judgement upon only the Jews in 70 A.D., but rather:

"15   And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it He may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty."

That "He may strike the nations" does not say "the Jewish nation", but instead includes all "nations".

Quote:19   And I saw the beast [anti-Christ], and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war with him that sat upon the horse, and with his army.

Here again, the text does not say "the kings of the Jews", but "the kings of the earth".  Likewise, anti-Christ was not destroyed, was not judged in 70 A.D. because the reign of terror of anti-Christ has yet to happen!

This is the correct interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14:

Quote:7:13. I beheld, therefore, in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the ancient of days: and they presented him before him.

7:14. And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed.

Nic, the Catholic Church has consistently taught the SACRAMENTAL Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  To emphasize only the SPIRITUAL Presence of Christ leads one very, very close to the brink of heresy, most especially if one over-emphasizes the Spiritual Presence of Christ only in the Transubstantiated Sacred Species.

Nic, one must wonder IF perhaps you have been reading one or more writings from one or more NEW Theology Theologians?

Why?

Please consider the word "spiritual" in the following quote:

Quote:Today these new theologians say:

“Not only is this word [transubstantiation] inconvenient, … it corresponds to an inadmissible concept and definition.”

“In the Scholastic perspective, in which the reality of the thing is ‘the substance’, the thing may not really change, only if the substance changes… by the transubstantiation. According to the current view, where, by virtue of the offering which was made according to a rite determined by Christ, the bread and the wine became the efficacious symbol of the sacrifice of Christ, and consequently of the spiritual presence, and their religious being was changed, not only their substance. [39]

And also: “This is what we can designate by transubstantiation.”

But it is clear that it is no longer the Transubstantiation defined by the Council of Trent,

“that singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining”.

It is evident that the sense of the Council [of Trent] is not maintained by the introduction of these new notions. The bread and the wine have become only “the efficacious symbols of the spiritual presence of Christ".

[Footnote # 39]  In the same article we read: “In the scholastics’ perspective, the idea of thing-sign was lost. In an Augustinian universe, where a material thing is not only itself, but rather a sign of spiritual realities, one can say that a thing, being through the will of God the sign of another thing, which it was by nature, [that thing] might become itself other without changing appearance.”

In the scholastic perspective, the idea of thing-sign is not lost at all.... Thus Isaac who prepared to be sacrificed is the figure of Christ, and the manna is the figure of the Eucharist. St. Thomas notes this when speaking of this sacrament. But by the Eucharist Consecration the bread does not only become the sign of the Body of Christ, and the wine the sign of His Blood, as the sacramentaries of the Protestants are thought to be. CF. D.T.C. art. Sacramentaire; but as it was formally defined at the Council of Trent, the substance of bread is changed into that of the Body of Christ which was rendered present per modum substantiae under the species of bread. And this is not only germane to the theologians of the era of the Council regarding the Consecration. It is the immutable Truth defined by the Church.  (Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
[b. Auch, France 1877 A.D. - d. Rome, Italy, 1964 A.D.], "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?"; emphasis added.)

In other words, according to the NEW Theology Theologians, for them Transubstantiation, IF they bother to use the term at all, means only the spiritual presence of Christ:

Quote:It is evident that the sense of the Council [of Trent] is not maintained by the introduction of these new notions. The bread and the wine have become only “the efficacious symbols of the spiritual presence of Christ".   (Op. Cit.)

This is, at best, Protestant theology and is contrary to

Quote: the immutable Truth defined by the Church.

Therefore, the term spiritual presence of Christ", irregardless of how it is used, is an extremely dangerous theological term because it connotes the Protestant heresy as espoused by the NEW Theology Theologians, all of whom are automatically excommunicated Modernists heretics!

I hope this rather brief review of the Catholic Traditional teachings on these subjects has been of some help in clarifying some of the above issues?

Thanks for reading!   :)

God Bless You!   :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim
Reply
Where in my post did I ever deny the Sacramental presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?  What I was referring to was that the "parousia" of Christ was not physical, it was spiritual, a spiritual coming in Judgment upon unbelieving Israel.  His coming was not physical - Jesus warned His followers to NOT follow false prophets in Matthew 24, because His coming would be as lightning in the sky, which denotes an incorporeal nature.  This is also why many were worried that they had missed His Coming (see Thessalonians).

Also, the whole "thousand years as one day" is out of context and is a LONG held and highly erroneous excuse of futurists.  God created men, that we can agree on.  Scripture is inspired by God and time references are made for our benefit of being restricted by time (unless clear apocalyptic symbolism is being invoked, such as the 1,000 year "millennium" and the "144,000," which is 12 squared).  The very first verse of Revelation states that the following are things that must SOON take place.  Also, if this "1,000 years equals a day" is our formula for figuring out time statements in Scripture, then the millennium of Revelation must have only been a day long, is that right?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean the church of Smyrna would have tribulation for 10,000 years (Revelation 2:10)?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean Jesus was in the grave for 3,000 years (Matthew 12:40)?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean it took the disciples 6,000 years to reach the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:1)?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean Jesus was tempted of the devil for 40,000 years (Luke 4:2)?

If time means nothing to God, why does God constantly use time restricted statements such as shortly, at hand, near, quickly, end of all things, last times, last hour, last days, last day, this generation, etc?

If time means nothing to God, why does God consider 70 years a long time (Jeremiah 29:10,28)?

If time means nothing to God, why would He give Daniel a 70 week prophecy (Daniel 9:24)?

If time means nothing to God, why did God create a 7 day week (Genesis 1-2)?

It is absolutely irrelevant for God to note a frame of reference according to His eternal oversight when speaking to men. To say that Revelation's references to the Lord coming "quickly" are spoken from God's viewpoint, who considers millennia as we do mere days, is to imply that God forgets about our perspective, and ignores our limitations of thought. If a proposed "quick" coming meant two thousand years, since two thousand years is hardly no time at all in the mind of a God who has no limitations with time as we do, then all other divinely inspired references in the Bible of a quick coming "at hand" must refer to approximately two thousand years as well.

Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God being "at hand." He repeated John the Baptist's words concerning the same.

    And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Mat 3:2)

    From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
(Mat. 4:17)

"At hand" means very, very soon, in our human terms (In the first verse of Revelation the Greek word en tachei is used, which denotes speed and haste). And 70 AD did indeed arrive quite soon. In fact, it arrived so soon that the angel told John to not seal the book of visions and words he received since the time was so close. Daniel wrote some five hundred years before John wrote. And Daniel was told to not seal the book because the time was afar off for it's fulfillment.

    But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased
. (Dan 12:4)

    And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. (Dan 12:9)

Compare that with the instructions given to John concerning the prophesy:

    And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand . (Rev 22:10)

If Daniel was only 500 years behind John, and was told to seal the book because time was too far away to concern Daniel, but this was not so with John, then how can two thousand years since John fit the scenario? Is there a limit to the extent of man's concern that lies somewhere between our time today since John, and our time today since Daniel? Is the magic limit number between 2000 years and 2500 years before the sealing must occur? That must be the case if futurists are correct.

Or maybe God recalled man's limitations when speaking to Daniel, but neglected them when speaking with John. The only problem with that is that God had Daniel seal the book when speaking from man's perspective, whereas He did not when speaking to John from the eternal perspective. One brother was ripped off and cheated from insight, if the futurists are correct, depending upon which perspective God from which chose to speak to these men!

The entire scope of the book of Revelation is the replacing of the Old Jerusalem with the New Jerusalem (the Catholic Church, the Kingdom of Christ - Militant, Suffering and Triumphant).  Do you think that this hasn't occurred yet?  Only premillennialists and Dispensationalists believe that, and I hope that you're neither of those.

Thanks for reading, and may God Bless you as well. 
Reply
(12-05-2011, 01:42 PM)Nic Wrote: Where in my post did I ever deny the Sacramental presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?  What I was referring to was that the "parousia" of Christ was not physical, it was spiritual, a spiritual coming in Judgment upon unbelieving Israel.  His coming was not physical - Jesus warned His followers to NOT follow false prophets in Matthew 24, because His coming would be as lightning in the sky, which denotes an incorporeal nature.  This is also why many were worried that they had missed His Coming (see Thessalonians).

Also, the whole "thousand years as one day" is out of context and is a LONG held and highly erroneous excuse of futurists.  God created men, that we can agree on.  Scripture is inspired by God and time references are made for our benefit of being restricted by time (unless clear apocalyptic symbolism is being invoked, such as the 1,000 year "millennium" and the "144,000," which is 12 squared).  The very first verse of Revelation states that the following are things that must SOON take place.  Also, if this "1,000 years equals a day" is our formula for figuring out time statements in Scripture, then the millennium of Revelation must have only been a day long, is that right?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean the church of Smyrna would have tribulation for 10,000 years (Revelation 2:10)?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean Jesus was in the grave for 3,000 years (Matthew 12:40)?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean it took the disciples 6,000 years to reach the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:1)?

If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord is how we are to read time in scripture, does that mean Jesus was tempted of the devil for 40,000 years (Luke 4:2)?

If time means nothing to God, why does God constantly use time restricted statements such as shortly, at hand, near, quickly, end of all things, last times, last hour, last days, last day, this generation, etc?

If time means nothing to God, why does God consider 70 years a long time (Jeremiah 29:10,28)?

If time means nothing to God, why would He give Daniel a 70 week prophecy (Daniel 9:24)?

If time means nothing to God, why did God create a 7 day week (Genesis 1-2)?

It is absolutely irrelevant for God to note a frame of reference according to His eternal oversight when speaking to men. To say that Revelation's references to the Lord coming "quickly" are spoken from God's viewpoint, who considers millennia as we do mere days, is to imply that God forgets about our perspective, and ignores our limitations of thought. If a proposed "quick" coming meant two thousand years, since two thousand years is hardly no time at all in the mind of a God who has no limitations with time as we do, then all other divinely inspired references in the Bible of a quick coming "at hand" must refer to approximately two thousand years as well.

Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God being "at hand." He repeated John the Baptist's words concerning the same.

    And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Mat 3:2)

    From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
(Mat. 4:17)

"At hand" means very, very soon, in our human terms (In the first verse of Revelation the Greek word en tachei is used, which denotes speed and haste). And 70 AD did indeed arrive quite soon. In fact, it arrived so soon that the angel told John to not seal the book of visions and words he received since the time was so close. Daniel wrote some five hundred years before John wrote. And Daniel was told to not seal the book because the time was afar off for it's fulfillment.

    But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased
. (Dan 12:4)

    And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. (Dan 12:9)

Compare that with the instructions given to John concerning the prophesy:

    And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand . (Rev 22:10)

If Daniel was only 500 years behind John, and was told to seal the book because time was too far away to concern Daniel, but this was not so with John, then how can two thousand years since John fit the scenario? Is there a limit to the extent of man's concern that lies somewhere between our time today since John, and our time today since Daniel? Is the magic limit number between 2000 years and 2500 years before the sealing must occur? That must be the case if futurists are correct.

Or maybe God recalled man's limitations when speaking to Daniel, but neglected them when speaking with John. The only problem with that is that God had Daniel seal the book when speaking from man's perspective, whereas He did not when speaking to John from the eternal perspective. One brother was ripped off and cheated from insight, if the futurists are correct, depending upon which perspective God from which chose to speak to these men!

The entire scope of the book of Revelation is the replacing of the Old Jerusalem with the New Jerusalem (the Catholic Church, the Kingdom of Christ - Militant, Suffering and Triumphant).  Do you think that this hasn't occurred yet?  Only premillennialists and Dispensationalists believe that, and I hope that you're neither of those.

Thanks for reading, and may God Bless you as well. 

Hi Nic!     :)

Thank you so much for your clarifications and also God's Blessing!

To clarify - I never stated that YOU, personally, ever denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.  I was writing in general terms concerning the subject matter at hand.

My point remains that the concept of the "Spiritual presence" of Christ anywhere, but especially in the Holy Eucharist, is something one finds in the writings of Protestants and of the NEW Theology Theologians.

Therefore, within the context of Catholic Theology, the "Spiritual presence" of Christ, as found in those types of writing, sets off a red flag warning.

An over-emphasis on the term the "Spiritual presence" of Christ has historically been used by the NEW Theology Theologians which has caused confusion in the minds of some Catholics.

Nic, obviously both you and I believe what the Infallible Roman Catholic Council of Trent teaches on Transubstantiation.   :)

Quote:What I was referring to was that the "parousia" of Christ was not physical, it was spiritual, a spiritual coming in Judgment upon unbelieving Israel.  His coming was not physical - Jesus warned His followers to NOT follow false prophets in Matthew 24, because His coming would be as lightning in the sky, which denotes an incorporeal nature.  This is also why many were worried that they had missed His Coming (see Thessalonians).

Nic, the problem here is that, just as you have quoted your Scriptural sources, so also, I can cite various Scriptures as well.

For example:

Quote:36   But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.
37   And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38   For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark,
39   And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.
40   Then two shall be in the field:  one shall be taken, and one shall be left.
41   Two women shall be grinding at the mill:  one shall be taken, and one shall be left.
42   Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come.  (Matthew 24:36-42; emphasis added).

Quote:32  But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
33   Take ye heed, watch and pray.  For ye know not when the time is.
34   Even as a man who going into a far country, left his house; and gave authority to his servants over every work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35   Watch ye therefor, (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh:  at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning,)
36   Lest coming on a sudden, he find you sleeping.
37   And what I say to you, I say to all:  Watch.  (Mark 13:32-37; emphasis added.)

Therefore, the exact time for the

Quote:Parousia (Gr. presence, arrival)  It denotes the second  coming of Christ at the end of time when He shall judge the living and the dead.  ("The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary", Compiled and Edited by Albert J. Nevins, M.M., Imprimatur + Jerome D. Hannan, Bishop of Scranton, November 28, 1964, Grosset & Dunlap Parousia, p. 431, column 1; emphasis added).

is not known, except by God the Father - not even the Son knows the exact time.

Therefore, because only God the Father knows the exact time of the Parousia, and because Christ Himself, God the Son, specifically states that He Himself does not even know the exact time of the Parousia, how, therefore, can anything which Christ says be used to somehow "prove" the exact time for the Parousia which "denotes the second  coming of Christ at the end of time when He shall judge the living and the dead"?

Nic, please remember that this is the point of the parables about the wise and foolish virgins (Matthew 25:1-13; Luke 19:12-27).

The fact that not even Christ Himself knows the exact time of the Parousia was perhaps the primary reason why:

Quote:the traditions concerning the sayings of Jesus about the Parousia began to take divergent forms extremely early.  (John L. McKenzie, S.J., "Dictionary of The Bible", Imprimatur + Cletus F. O'Donnell, J.C.D., Vicar General, Archdiocese of Chicago, February 18, 1965,  Parousia, p. 638, column 2; emphasis added).

Because not even Christ Himself knows the exact time of the Parousia, this also means that whatever Christ says in the Scriptures which speak of the actual  Parousia, "at the end of time when He [Christ] shall judge the living and the dead", have only the purpose of a "proper preparation" for the actual  Parousia which will include everyone who has ever lived, and is not limited to only a judgment upon the Jews, but rather on the entire human race.

Nic, you and I can trade passages of Scripture on this subject, but it all amounts to one word:  "Watch".

Therefore, for this reason, any other application of the  Parousia, in my opinion, is merely speculation and conjecture.

Concerning the subject of a "Spiritual"  Parousia, this can be applied to a number of historical events, so that in the final analysis, a litany of "Spiritual Parousiae" can be posited, with one position as tenable as any other position.  It seems to me such a helter-skelter application dilutes attention from the reason for the mention of the  Parousia, in the first place - they are all distractions which cause people to loose the focus they are supposed to have concerning the physical and real  Parousia - to "watch", or to watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come.

IF the "Spiritual"  Parousia has already come and gone, why bother to "watch"?  This is the message that some people will get from the many different "Spiritual" Parousiae.

An example of a very brief litany of "Spiritual" Parousiae:

1.  Condemnation of Cain for the murder of his Brother Abel.
2.  The destruction of the entire human race during the 40 days of rain, except for those on the Ark with Noah.
3.  The plagues of Egypt and the Passover.
4.  Army of Pharao pursuing Moses and the children of Israel were drowned in the Red Sea.
5.  The defeat and death of King Saul and his three Sons at the battle of Mt. Gilboa.
6.  The victories of the Maccabees over their enemies.
7.  Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
8.  Condemnation of Father Arius and the Arian Heresy by the First Œcumenical Council, the First Council of Nicæa, a.k.a. Council of Nicæa I [Saturday, June 20, 325 A.D. - Tuesday, August 25, 325 A.D.].
9.  Edict of Toleration of 311 A.D. stopped much of the bloody persecution of Catholics by the Roman Empire.
10.  Edict of Milan of March, 313 A.D. officially ended the bloody persecution of Catholics by the Roman Empire.
11.  408 - 410: Rome repeatedly besieged, and finally taken by storm by Alaric and sacked.
12.  610:  The Roman Pantheon transformed into a Catholic church.
13.  650:  Synod of Rouen condemns the practice of Communion in the hand.
14.  880:  Alfred the Great, King of England, delivers his country from the yoke of the Danes, and carries out wholesome reforms.
15.  1357 - 1358:  The greatest part of the States of the Church regained by Albornoz.
16.  1545 - 1563: Nineteenth Œcumenical Council, the First Council of Trent.  [Thursday, December 13, 1545 A.D. - Wednesday, December 4, 1563 A.D.]
17.  1907: Pope Saint Pius X publishes his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis which condemns the heresy of Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies.
18.  1945:  Japan formally surrenders to the Allies on September 2 on board the USS Missouri.
19.  January 15, 1967: Green Bay Packers football team won the first Super Bowl game over the Kansas City Chiefs with a score of 35 - 10.
20.  The baseball team to win the most world series games is the New York Yankees (American League) which has won a total of 27.

This litany of "Spiritual" Parousiae detracts from the full impact of the one, real, physical  Parousia at the end of the world! 

Why?

Nic, it seems to me that this is something the Devil would want to eagerly propagate so that the watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come thereby becomes relatively commonplace and the requirement to "watch" is reduced to a mediocre, faint-hearted effort - at best, which is usually totally ignored, the reason for this having been grossly dissipated with the over-use of the litany of "Spiritual" Parousiae.

Some may object to the term litany of "Spiritual" Parousiae?  But once the principle is let loose - i.e. applied to the Jews in 70 A.D. - then the real  raison d'être becomes adulterated with delusive elements as the result of the tendency to apply the 70 A.D. "Spiritual" Parousia to everything else remotely similar in the annals of human history?  In other words, it tends to becomes a kind of exigentical  "yardstick" by which to measure victory/defeat throughout the realm of divergent human endeavors from victory/defeat found in the Bible, to all areas of human history, and even, at least potentially, to the arena of sports.

One may not find this so-called litany of "Spiritual" Parousiae, but, as the brief list above testifies, it can be found with other names under the cover of legitimate historical records of various kinds which would have some unknown degree of effect on the subconscious mind.

I really doubt that most Catholics today have even heard of the term Parousia, let alone know its true meaning?  This is a very great concern because the real, physical Parousia could happen anytime, although, according to the Apocalypse, it will happen some time after the terrorist reign of anti-Christ, and the later battle of Gog and Magog.

Finally, concerning:

Quote:But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.  (2 Peter 3:8; emphasis added).

Nic, This 1,000 years is an anthropomorphic term which indicates that God does not "live in time", but in the ever-present-now we call "eternity" where there is no past and no future, only the present.

Now time is the duration of that which changes, or, more precisely:

Quote:“everything that changes, changes time” (Aristotle [b. at Stageira, on the Greek Chalcidice peninsula in 384 B.C. - d. at Euboea, the second largest of the Greek Aegean Islands and the second largest Greek island overall in area and population, after Crete, on March 7, 322 B.C.], PHYSICS [350 B.C.], Book VI, ¶ 6).

The Angelic Doctor puts it this way:

Quote:“Time...signifies a measure of duration.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 35, Article 2, Reply to Objection 4).

The point is that "when" time ends is at the real, actual, physical Parousia and Christ tells all of us to "watch", i.e. to be prepared.

This reminds me of a conversation I had many long years ago with a Parishioner who approached me one Sunday after I had given a lecture on the Apocalypse in the school hall adjacent to the church.  He was very worried about the end of the world.  When will it happen, etc., etc.

I reminded him that in practical and realistic terms the end of the world for him and for me and everyone else is when we die.  IF the world continues on for another 5,000 years, or longer, in this sense it is irrelevant.  On the contrary, what each of us needs to do today is to live each day as if it was our last day in this life - that will be the end of the world for us.  To always be prepared to give an account of our stewardship, for then we can be steward no longer.

Nic, hopefully I have clarified a few things for you concerning my previous post?

Thanks for reading!   :)

God Bless You!    :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim
Reply
I guess will just have to agree to disagree for now, because I firmly believe that over 95% of the "eschatological" references in the New Testament point to Christ's Judgment Coming upon Israel, which was a spiritual "coming" "in the glory of His Father" to open Heaven for mankind.  The imminent nature of these Scriptures simply CANNOT be explained away, I don't care how hard one tries.  I tried for a long time until I can to the realization that I no longer couldn't because it stretches logic and word-meaning to the breaking point.

I also believe that 99% of the Book of Revelation was fulfulled in the 1st century, and I have a lot of evidence to back up that claim - and I have a real hard time how some Catholics can hold the amillennial approach and not do the same, which is another illogical approach (saying that the first 1-19 chapters speak about the "end-times," then when we get to ch. 20 after these chapters, we go back in time 2,000 years to show how the millennium started, even though the result of the start of the millennium had everything to do with the events of the first 19 chapters [like those not accepting the spiritual mark of the beast] - makes no sense).  I believe that there is only a few verses in Revelation that deal with the "end times," and those are the ones speaking about the "Battle of Gog and Magog."

Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree lest we derail this thread further.

Thanks and God Bless.
Reply
(12-06-2011, 07:29 AM)Nic Wrote: I guess will just have to agree to disagree for now, because I firmly believe that over 95% of the "eschatological" references in the New Testament point to Christ's Judgment Coming upon Israel, which was a spiritual "coming" "in the glory of His Father" to open Heaven for mankind.  The imminent nature of these Scriptures simply CANNOT be explained away, I don't care how hard one tries.  I tried for a long time until I can to the realization that I no longer couldn't because it stretches logic and word-meaning to the breaking point.

I also believe that 99% of the Book of Revelation was fulfulled in the 1st century, and I have a lot of evidence to back up that claim - and I have a real hard time how some Catholics can hold the amillennial approach and not do the same, which is another illogical approach (saying that the first 1-19 chapters speak about the "end-times," then when we get to ch. 20 after these chapters, we go back in time 2,000 years to show how the millennium started, even though the result of the start of the millennium had everything to do with the events of the first 19 chapters [like those not accepting the spiritual mark of the beast] - makes no sense).  I believe that there is only a few verses in Revelation that deal with the "end times," and those are the ones speaking about the "Battle of Gog and Magog."

Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree lest we derail this thread further.

Thanks and God Bless.

Hi Nic,   :)

Thanks for your response and God's Blessing!  Always nice to hear from you!  :)

Father Kramer, who claims he spent 30 years in a study of the Fathers of the Church concerning how they interpret the Apocalypse, and then wrote his book "The Book of Destiny" based in large part on his 30 years of research and study, especially of the Fathers, takes the position that the Apocalypse is the future history of the Catholic Church beginning not all that long before this "disclosure" to Saint John, accompanied by the many different visions.

Obviously, Father Kramer is not infallible, but, by the same token, the texts having to do with the "Spiritual presence" of Christ, or a "Spiritual Parousia" can be interpreted in various ways.

The bottom line to me is that all "Spiritual Parousiae", of whatsoever kind, distract the mind from the one and only real "Parousia" at the end of the world which, to me, is much more important than what happened to the Jews in 70 A.D.

Catholics who are wise and prudent should always be prepared for the one and only real "Parousia" at the end of the world.  Only at the end of the world will everything finally be clearly revealed and all Prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments will have been totally fulfilled and will then make sense to everyone.  So, until then, we can now "shake hands" virtually over the internet, and "agree to disagree", without taking anything personal.

Until then, I also agree that this tangent should end and a re-focus on "Malachi Martin: a trustworthy source?", continue forward.

Thanks again for writing!  :)

God Bless You!  :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim
Reply
(12-06-2011, 07:39 PM)A-Catholic-Catholic Wrote:
(12-06-2011, 07:29 AM)Nic Wrote: I guess will just have to agree to disagree for now, because I firmly believe that over 95% of the "eschatological" references in the New Testament point to Christ's Judgment Coming upon Israel, which was a spiritual "coming" "in the glory of His Father" to open Heaven for mankind.  The imminent nature of these Scriptures simply CANNOT be explained away, I don't care how hard one tries.  I tried for a long time until I can to the realization that I no longer couldn't because it stretches logic and word-meaning to the breaking point.

I also believe that 99% of the Book of Revelation was fulfulled in the 1st century, and I have a lot of evidence to back up that claim - and I have a real hard time how some Catholics can hold the amillennial approach and not do the same, which is another illogical approach (saying that the first 1-19 chapters speak about the "end-times," then when we get to ch. 20 after these chapters, we go back in time 2,000 years to show how the millennium started, even though the result of the start of the millennium had everything to do with the events of the first 19 chapters [like those not accepting the spiritual mark of the beast] - makes no sense).  I believe that there is only a few verses in Revelation that deal with the "end times," and those are the ones speaking about the "Battle of Gog and Magog."

Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree lest we derail this thread further.

Thanks and God Bless.

Hi Nic,    :)

Thanks for your response and God's Blessing!  Always nice to hear from you!  :)

Father Kramer, who claims he spent 30 years in a study of the Fathers of the Church concerning how they interpret the Apocalypse, and then wrote his book "The Book of Destiny" based in large part on his 30 years of research and study, especially of the Fathers, takes the position that the Apocalypse is the future history of the Catholic Church beginning not all that long before this "disclosure" to Saint John, accompanied by the many different visions.

Obviously, Father Kramer is not infallible, but, by the same token, the texts having to do with the "Spiritual presence" of Christ, or a "Spiritual Parousia" can be interpreted in various ways.

The bottom line to me is that all "Spiritual Parousiae", of whatsoever kind, distract the mind from the one and only real "Parousia" at the end of the world which, to me, is much more important than what happened to the Jews in 70 A.D.

Catholics who are wise and prudent should always be prepared for the one and only real "Parousia" at the end of the world.  Only at the end of the world will everything finally be clearly revealed and all Prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments will have been totally fulfilled and will then make sense to everyone.  So, until then, we can now "shake hands" virtually over the internet, and "agree to disagree", without taking anything personal.

Until then, I also agree that this tangent should end and a re-focus on "Malachi Martin: a trustworthy source?", continue forward.

Thanks again for writing!  :)

God Bless You!   :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim


I am sorry to continue with this, but now I understand!  Good ol' Father Kramer, writer of the "Book of Destiny," which is nothing more than what I like to call "Catholic Dispensationalism" and what I would personally classify as highly unorthodox since it undoubtedly teaches premillennialism.  What Father Kramer may or may not have understood is that many of the early Fathers were in clear error concerning "the millennium," which threw a huge wrench into their eschatological interpretation.  I have read Kramer's books, and they are nothing short of outlandish speculation and very poor exegesis, which is the hallmark of all futurism (make predictions that never come true because futurism is an error - several of those same Fathers, and many other futurists, have gone on to set dates for the end of the world and the Second Coming that never happened, thus totally wrecking their exegetical and interpretive credibility).

Futurist approaches such as this simply have no understanding of apocalyptic symbolism used in the Old Testament.  The entire Book of Revelation invokes this symbolism, as well as Jesus' "Olivet Discourse."  Futurist approaches such as these also simply ignore or ignorantly try to explain away the imminent nature of the Scriptures, as well as certain "proof texts" that exclaim that this book is dealing with the 1st century (such as the Jewish Temple still standing, the 7 kings of Rome, etc.). 

It has a lot more to do with just "what happened to the Jews" in 70 AD.  I believe that the Scriptural texts show this very, very clearly if we take off our futurist glasses and have a realized eschatological look at them.  These Scriptures weren't written for us - they were written for the people at the time.  They benefit us, but they were not especially FOR us (they were for the Galatians, the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, the 7 real churches of Asia Minor in the late 60's AD, etc.).  WE in the 21st century are not told to "reckon the number of the beast," the people reading it at that time were given that instruction (which the number perfectly equals Nero Caesar in Hebrew Gematria).

Also, if you look at the "Olivet Discourse," Jesus equates "the Coming of the Son of Man" with the destruction of Jerusalem, this is more than clearly evident.  He gives signs to those listening to Him at that moment of things that would take place before this event, and instructions on what to do.  He even tells them that their generation would not pass away until all of those things took place.  The "Coming of the Son of Man" was not physical, it was indeed spiritual - and it happened within that generation as Jesus said it would.

MANY atheists use these Scriptures to try and say that Jesus was just wrong concerning the timing of His Coming.  This is because it is overwhelmingly obvious that Jesus stated that He was going to come into His Kingdom within a generation - very soon, at hand - and that the writers of the NT believed that THEY were living in the "last days."  Scriptures like these help further establish this position:

For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
  (Matt 16:27)

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.
(Matt 10:23)

I have quoted verses like these to futurists before and they had to go back and double-check their Bibles to make sure I wasn't making them up!  The imminency of Christ's Coming is a SCRIPTURAL REALITY!

But the atheists are dead wrong, Christ was not a liar, He was not mistaken.  Christ did come again in the exact time He said He would.

Am I saying that I believe the Coming of the Son of Man to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the 1st century was the "Second Coming."  In a way, yes, but in a way, no.  In a way, yes, because much of what futurists prescribe as "end times" events in Scripture are not that.  No in a way because I believe that Christ will come again physically at the end of time, in the glory of Himself (see Matthew 25:31-45, what I believe to be perhaps the only reference to the end of the world physical coming in all of the NT).

Christ came "in the glory of His Father" in 70 AD.  What was the "glory of His Father?"  God the Father "came" many times in the Old Testament era - but were those comings ever physical?  Nope.  They were spiritual comings, usually in judgment, and usually "upon the clouds of heaven" which denotes divine judgment. If God the Father can come in such a way, then who is to say that Jesus, Who is God, cannot do the same?

The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

(Isa 19:1)

The Bible says that God's presence in clouds implies righteousness and judgment.

    Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.
    (Psalm 97:2)

    Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled. O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness , that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?

    (Jer 4:13-14)

    The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
    (Nah 1:3)

    That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
    (Zep 1:15-17)



And what did Jesus say:

    Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
    (Mat 26:64-65)

The High Priest recalled these very scriptures I am citing in support of the understanding that coming in clouds referred to God coming in judgment. Jesus was saying He was the God of the Old Testament who came in judgment! Jesus not only informed the man that He was God, but also that Jerusalem would be judged just as she was judged in Old testament times, and that is by using heathen armies.

And what does the very first part of the Book of Revelation state:

THE revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place... Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.


This is repeated again and again. And everyone who heard Jesus understood those words as reminiscent of the above references, indicating a coming of God in judgment, including the High Priest! So the Priest cried "Blasphemy" upon hearing that. He did not scratch his head and wonder what on earth Jesus was talking about, which would have been the case had Jesus referred to a coming 2,000 years afterwards. But Jesus said the High Priest would see this.

Did anyone physically see Jesus coming in clouds? No.

But the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70 A.D. they did see (a destruction that took exactly 3.5 years to accomplish!). And that is what Jesus meant by people seeing Him come in clouds. He meant they would see His judgment. His destruction. Coming in clouds was simply synonymous with destruction and wrath of God, therefore they would see the destruction, and by this destruction they knew the words of Christ were true, that he had been "revealed," that He had come into His Kingdom in Heaven, and that Heaven was now open for mankind, for those who would attain the "first resurrection."

The events surrounding 70 AD fulfill the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation so perfectly that it literally sends chills down my spine concerning the accuracy of it!

God Bless.







Reply
(12-06-2011, 10:31 PM)Nic Wrote:
(12-06-2011, 07:39 PM)A-Catholic-Catholic Wrote:
(12-06-2011, 07:29 AM)Nic Wrote: I guess will just have to agree to disagree for now, because I firmly believe that over 95% of the "eschatological" references in the New Testament point to Christ's Judgment Coming upon Israel, which was a spiritual "coming" "in the glory of His Father" to open Heaven for mankind.  The imminent nature of these Scriptures simply CANNOT be explained away, I don't care how hard one tries.  I tried for a long time until I can to the realization that I no longer couldn't because it stretches logic and word-meaning to the breaking point.

I also believe that 99% of the Book of Revelation was fulfulled in the 1st century, and I have a lot of evidence to back up that claim - and I have a real hard time how some Catholics can hold the amillennial approach and not do the same, which is another illogical approach (saying that the first 1-19 chapters speak about the "end-times," then when we get to ch. 20 after these chapters, we go back in time 2,000 years to show how the millennium started, even though the result of the start of the millennium had everything to do with the events of the first 19 chapters [like those not accepting the spiritual mark of the beast] - makes no sense).  I believe that there is only a few verses in Revelation that deal with the "end times," and those are the ones speaking about the "Battle of Gog and Magog."

Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree lest we derail this thread further.

Thanks and God Bless.

Hi Nic,    :)

Thanks for your response and God's Blessing!  Always nice to hear from you!  :)

Father Kramer, who claims he spent 30 years in a study of the Fathers of the Church concerning how they interpret the Apocalypse, and then wrote his book "The Book of Destiny" based in large part on his 30 years of research and study, especially of the Fathers, takes the position that the Apocalypse is the future history of the Catholic Church beginning not all that long before this "disclosure" to Saint John, accompanied by the many different visions.

Obviously, Father Kramer is not infallible, but, by the same token, the texts having to do with the "Spiritual presence" of Christ, or a "Spiritual Parousia" can be interpreted in various ways.

The bottom line to me is that all "Spiritual Parousiae", of whatsoever kind, distract the mind from the one and only real "Parousia" at the end of the world which, to me, is much more important than what happened to the Jews in 70 A.D.

Catholics who are wise and prudent should always be prepared for the one and only real "Parousia" at the end of the world.  Only at the end of the world will everything finally be clearly revealed and all Prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments will have been totally fulfilled and will then make sense to everyone.  So, until then, we can now "shake hands" virtually over the internet, and "agree to disagree", without taking anything personal.

Until then, I also agree that this tangent should end and a re-focus on "Malachi Martin: a trustworthy source?", continue forward.

Thanks again for writing!  :)

God Bless You!   :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim


I am sorry to continue with this, but now I understand!  Good ol' Father Kramer, writer of the "Book of Destiny," which is nothing more than what I like to call "Catholic Dispensationalism" and what I would personally classify as highly unorthodox since it undoubtedly teaches premillennialism.  What Father Kramer may or may not have understood is that many of the early Fathers were in clear error concerning "the millennium," which threw a huge wrench into their eschatological interpretation.  I have read Kramer's books, and they are nothing short of outlandish speculation and very poor exegesis, which is the hallmark of all futurism (make predictions that never come true because futurism is an error - several of those same Fathers, and many other futurists, have gone on to set dates for the end of the world and the Second Coming that never happened, thus totally wrecking their exegetical and interpretive credibility).

Futurist approaches such as this simply have no understanding of apocalyptic symbolism used in the Old Testament.  The entire Book of Revelation invokes this symbolism, as well as Jesus' "Olivet Discourse."  Futurist approaches such as these also simply ignore or ignorantly try to explain away the imminent nature of the Scriptures, as well as certain "proof texts" that exclaim that this book is dealing with the 1st century (such as the Jewish Temple still standing, the 7 kings of Rome, etc.). 

It has a lot more to do with just "what happened to the Jews" in 70 AD.  I believe that the Scriptural texts show this very, very clearly if we take off our futurist glasses and have a realized eschatological look at them.  These Scriptures weren't written for us - they were written for the people at the time.  They benefit us, but they were not especially FOR us (they were for the Galatians, the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, the 7 real churches of Asia Minor in the late 60's AD, etc.).  WE in the 21st century are not told to "reckon the number of the beast," the people reading it at that time were given that instruction (which the number perfectly equals Nero Caesar in Hebrew Gematria).

Also, if you look at the "Olivet Discourse," Jesus equates "the Coming of the Son of Man" with the destruction of Jerusalem, this is more than clearly evident.  He gives signs to those listening to Him at that moment of things that would take place before this event, and instructions on what to do.  He even tells them that their generation would not pass away until all of those things took place.   The "Coming of the Son of Man" was not physical, it was indeed spiritual - and it happened within that generation as Jesus said it would.

MANY atheists use these Scriptures to try and say that Jesus was just wrong concerning the timing of His Coming.  This is because it is overwhelmingly obvious that Jesus stated that He was going to come into His Kingdom within a generation - very soon, at hand - and that the writers of the NT believed that THEY were living in the "last days."  Scriptures like these help further establish this position:

For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
  (Matt 16:27)

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.
(Matt 10:23)

I have quoted verses like these to futurists before and they had to go back and double-check their Bibles to make sure I wasn't making them up!  The imminency of Christ's Coming is a SCRIPTURAL REALITY!

But the atheists are dead wrong, Christ was not a liar, He was not mistaken.  Christ did come again in the exact time He said He would.

Am I saying that I believe the Coming of the Son of Man to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the 1st century was the "Second Coming."  In a way, yes, but in a way, no.  In a way, yes, because much of what futurists prescribe as "end times" events in Scripture are not that.  No in a way because I believe that Christ will come again physically at the end of time, in the glory of Himself (see Matthew 25:31-45, what I believe to be perhaps the only reference to the end of the world physical coming in all of the NT).

Christ came "in the glory of His Father" in 70 AD.  What was the "glory of His Father?"  God the Father "came" many times in the Old Testament era - but were those comings ever physical?  Nope.  They were spiritual comings, usually in judgment, and usually "upon the clouds of heaven" which denotes divine judgment. If God the Father can come in such a way, then who is to say that Jesus, Who is God, cannot do the same?

The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

(Isa 19:1)

The Bible says that God's presence in clouds implies righteousness and judgment.

    Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.
    (Psalm 97:2)

    Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled. O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness , that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?

    (Jer 4:13-14)

    The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
    (Nah 1:3)

    That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
    (Zep 1:15-17)



And what did Jesus say:

    Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
    (Mat 26:64-65)

The High Priest recalled these very scriptures I am citing in support of the understanding that coming in clouds referred to God coming in judgment. Jesus was saying He was the God of the Old Testament who came in judgment! Jesus not only informed the man that He was God, but also that Jerusalem would be judged just as she was judged in Old testament times, and that is by using heathen armies.

And what does the very first part of the Book of Revelation state:

THE revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place... Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.


This is repeated again and again. And everyone who heard Jesus understood those words as reminiscent of the above references, indicating a coming of God in judgment, including the High Priest! So the Priest cried "Blasphemy" upon hearing that. He did not scratch his head and wonder what on earth Jesus was talking about, which would have been the case had Jesus referred to a coming 2,000 years afterwards. But Jesus said the High Priest would see this.

Did anyone physically see Jesus coming in clouds? No.

But the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70 A.D. they did see (a destruction that took exactly 3.5 years to accomplish!). And that is what Jesus meant by people seeing Him come in clouds. He meant they would see His judgment. His destruction. Coming in clouds was simply synonymous with destruction and wrath of God, therefore they would see the destruction, and by this destruction they knew the words of Christ were true, that he had been "revealed," that He had come into His Kingdom in Heaven, and that Heaven was now open for mankind, for those who would attain the "first resurrection."

The events surrounding 70 AD fulfill the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation so perfectly that it literally sends chills down my spine concerning the accuracy of it!

God Bless.

Hi Nic!    :)

Thank you so much for your insights and again for God's Blessing!

Having never met Father Kramer personally, I have only to go on what I read in "The Book of Destiny" and the personal opinion of one of his publishers.  Whether or not the Fathers of the Church were or were not in error, which is, as I understand it, the ultimate basis of his research and study, we will know for certain at the end of the world when everything has been accomplished and all is revealed and explained and makes total sense.  So, until then......

Nic, as you obviously alreadly know, it is not unusual to find contradictions among various Fathers of the Church.  This is probably one reason why the Profession of Faith requires adherence to only the "unanimous consensus" of the Fathers of the Church for the correct interpretation of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments.

Any student of Patrology should be aware that most probably there is very little, if anything at all, in the way of the required "unanimous consensus" on any given passage of Scripture?

On the flip side, this also means that all of the Catholic Clergy who have taken this Sacred Oath, including myself a number of times, per the reasons given in Canon Law, that I am free to interpret the Scriptures howsoever I desire, based upon my own research, study, and, of course Seminary Classes in Scripture, just so long as I strictly adhere to the ";unanimous consensus" requirement. 

By the way, one of my Priest Professors in the Seminary was scheduled to go to Jerusalem the following Scholastic Year in order to obtain his doctorate in Sacred Scripture, which, as I understand it, is the most difficult doctorate to get.

Needless to say, his erudition concerning his teaching of Sacred Scripture was very phenomenal, yet most certainly very traditional as well.  My point here is that my reference to Father Kramer's book was not to imply that he was my one and only source concerning my own studies in Sacred Scripture.  I do not remember ever seeing anything written by him on the Seminary library bookshelves, if for no other reason than that his book was published at a later time

Being aware of the position of a certain writer does not automatically indicate either agreement or disagreement by the reader with the said position of the author.

At this point in time, from a Pastoral standpoint, what concerns me, and what should now concern all Catholics, is the actual, real Parousia - the Second Coming of Christ which is the end of the world.  All of the rest is speculation especially since even Christ Himself says that not even He knows the exact time set by God the Father for the actual physical Parousia.

By the same token, the partial "litany" of the "Spiritual Parousiae" I provided in my previous post is very incomplete, with only 20 meager entries to but use as an example of various historical "Spiritual Parousiae", which I prefer to designate in other ways because it seems to me that "Spiritual Parousiae" is too vague and ambiguous for the average person to really understand the profundity which you attach it.

Again, as I had also previously mentioned, the "timing" Christ mentions in the Gospels concerning the actual "Parousia" is anthropomorphic because: 

1)  "time is the duration of that which changes" since there is no such thing as "time" in eternity which is where God "lives" and hence almost all mention of "time" in the Bible needs to be understood in this context;

2)  Christ states the He Himself does not know the actual "time" of the actual "Parousia", a.k.a. the end of the world.  Therefore, what Christ says concerning this "timing" is only  anthropomorphic at best because the real point Christ is making is to "watch", to "be ready" for it, to not be taken by surprise when it happens - hence the reason for the parable of the virgins, some of whom trimmed the wick of their lamps - the wise virgins - in contradistinction to the foolish virgins who had to leave to go get more fuel for their lamps and upon return found that the door was closed because the bridegroom had come while they were away.

Nic, based upon the feedback I have gotten from some of my Parishioners in the past, those who read the Apocalypse, had chills going down their spine.  I remember this was the same response from some of the neighbors who lived next to my Parents' home when I was going to High School, after several Sermons by our local Pastor on one of the topics in the Apocalypse, not to mention the good Dominican Fathers who used to give an annual "parish mission", as it was called back in those far-off days when there was never a question about what was, or was not, "Catholic", who also seemed to focus upon the Apocalypse for much of their source material.

Apparently, this was how the Apocalypse was taught by Priest Professors of Seminary classes in Sacred Scripture back around 1900 A.D. and for at least several decades thereafter.  So I am not really surprised that Father Kramer simply followed along the same path as he, apparently, had also been trained when he was in the Seminary?

Today, because of the perpetual climate of deliberate chaos and confusion, caused primarily, so it seems, by the NEW Theology Theologians, there is a great degree of skepticism concerning almost everything relating to the Bible, so much so, that I have had people complain to me, now for many, many years, that because of such a polluted atmosphere, they refuse to read the Bible anymore because they no longer know what to believe and what not to believe.  This is not good.  Yet, this is where such things as "Spiritual Parousia" have led people who have no background in Sacred Scripture!  From a Pastoral viewpoint, I compare today with how things were before V-2, based upon my own Pastoral experiences, and the Laity now question everything and everyone because of all of the "changes" - and this is the category, whether correctly or incorrectly, into which they put things like what you call "Spiritual Parousia", plus everything similar to it.

Things like this, no matter how accurate or how inaccurate they may or may not be, have made my Pastoral work much more difficult because now, thanks to the Pedophile scandal, no member of the Clergy has any credibility today with most Catholics - and I do not blame them!  The Laity have a right to take this position, especially those who, for many years now, have complained to me about all of the heresies they hear from the pulpit in their churches, whether from the younger clergy, or even from the older clergy who - to them - "should know better" - so they tell me!

In other words, most Catholics today could care less about this or that "theory" or "NEW teaching", etc.  They tell me they are tired of all of the changes of the changes of the changes and many have bluntly told me that they have stopped going to any church because of it - and this from people not just in most states in the U.S. but in many other countries as well.

Nic, as a courtesy to you, I mention these things which I have been hearing since the first changes began.  Most people tell me that do not want any changes and actually hate all of the changes!  I know others have had the opposite experience.  But I have actually seen the "fruits" of the "changes" in terms of church buildings that have been sold to Protestants, especially in certain states, where, for example, the Baptists are "doing a booming business" with a huge influx of ex-Catholics - all thanks to the "changes".

Nic, the point from a Pastoral standpoint is that to the "average Catholic", "Spiritual Parousia" sounds foreign to most Catholics and so, at least the vocal ones who have complained to me for year after year, automatically classify such things as part of the "no-good-for-nothing-changes" (direct quote) ever since V-2.

My experiences with the Catholic Laity is that most of them are focused on living their daily lives, trying to "survive" and therefore tend to be very practical and realistic.  They do not care about "theories" or "interpretations" which are different from what they were taught before V-2, or from what they have read in books printed before V-2.  In their minds, it does not concern them.

Nic, please do not take any of this personal, but instead what I am trying to do is simply to share with you some of my own personal Pastoral experiences with some of the Catholic Laity who are in no mood for anything "NEW" anymore. 

Just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine told me that one Lady has decided to stop taking her entire family to church because she hates - actually "hates" - the NEW translation used for "mass" in her church!


I am aware that there are those who can't get enough of any and all NEW changes, but they are not the proverbial "silent" majority - based upon the feedback I have had to hear since V-2!

I guess we can now consider the subject of "Spiritual Parousiae" defunct?

Thanks for reading!  :)

God Bless You!  :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim
Reply
Thanks and may God Bless you, Father.

Also please take note that it was never my intention to "lecture" a member of the clergy, but to only have a meaningful discussion.
Reply
Returning to the original subject:  Malachi Martin: a trustworthy source?

I was having some memory flashbacks how during my only telephone call to him, among many other things, he mentioned a few of his sources which happened to be a few of my sources as well.

I was remembering how, a number of years before that telephone call to Father Martin, some of my sources would tell me about their own telephone conversations with Father Martin.  

Please keep in mind that these mutual sources of Father Martin and myself were people I had personally known, and all of which I had met in person, not just once, but most of them many times, over a long period of time.  These people are all Catholics, are all very well educated, and, at least my own personal experience with each of them, caused me to consider each of them to have the highest of moral and ethical standards and great integrity.

Without one exception, before my phone call to Father Martin, the feedback each one of the mutual sources, had only the very best opinion of Father Martin.  Not one of them had any complaints about him in any way, nor ever said anything that had even a shadow of a derogatory comment about him.

The same was still true with each of these mutual sources after my telephone call to Father Martin.  Just as in my own case, so also with at least two of them, Father Martin incorporated our own unique personal experiences into one or more of his books, especially "Windswept House" in my case.

For the record, Father Martin likewise had nothing but very positive things to tell me about our mutual sources.

Therefore, based not only upon my own personal experience with Father Martin, which I have already given  on one of these previous web pages, but also based upon the personal experiences of our mutual sources, these same mutual sources likewise considered Father Malachi Martin a very "trustworthy source"!  I even remember a few of their comments about him - all very positive at the time and even since then!

Thanks for reading!  :)

God Bless You!   :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim
Reply
(12-07-2011, 07:29 AM)Nic Wrote: Thanks and may God Bless you, Father.

Also please take note that it was never my intention to "lecture" a member of the clergy, but to only have a meaningful discussion.

Hi Nic!   :)

Thanks for your post and clarification!

For your information, I never considered anything you wrote in the context of a "lecture", and the same holds true for me, concerning you!

The "meaningful discussion" you mention reminds me of the same type of "meaningful discussions" my classmates and myself used to have in the Seminary about various issues, especially of a theological nature.  We used to take a stroll, usually in several groups, but only two together in each group at the same time, around the "block" where our Seminary building was, especially after our noon-time lunch, when we would discuss all kinds of things.  No one ever considered these discussions as "lectures" or anything remotely similar and no one ever took anything personal.  It always seemed to work out that one of the two of us would be one grade level above the other which lent itself to an even more interesting "discussion"!

Thanks again for writing!  Keep up the good work!   :)

God Bless You!   :pray:

A Catholic Catholic  -  Father Jim
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)