Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Update on End of the World Booklet

Just thought readers might like to know that my new Catholic Truth Society booklet, The End of the World: What Catholics Believe, is now available on Amazon (for the US click here, or here for the UK). I'm also currently working on a sequel to my first book Unveiling the Apocalypse: Prophecy in Catholic Tradition, which explains the shortage of posts lately. I had been writing some important material for this blog, which ended up being way too long to cover in individual blog posts, and really deserves a book-length treatment in itself. But I hope to be posting here more regularly again, once I find a balance between what to write about here, and what to include in the forthcoming book.


jim.carroll said...

Greetings! There is an error in the link you posted to the American Amazon site. I did some editing, and here is the corrected URL to Amazon:

The End of the World: What Catholics Believe

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks for pointing that out Jim! I've corrected the link in the main post.

Anonymous said...


The title suggests what the average catholic thinks and not the church. Am I correct?


Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Chuck!

The booklet gives an outline on what the Church teaches on the subject of eschatology, and the historical development of these teachings, rather than what the average Catholic believes. As I'm sure you are aware, a lot of your average pew-sitting Catholics do have some ideas which are quite different from what the Church actually teaches, and have been greatly influenced by the Protestant evangelical revival of millennialism.

Anonymous said...

Delighted to hear there is an upcoming to sequel to "Unveiling the Apocalypse".

Does either this new booklet or will the sequel further address Dan 8:13-14 which you quote in "Unveiling":

Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state. (Dan 8:13–14)

Specifically a discussion of the "2,300 morning and evenings" apart from the "1,260 days" discussion which follows the above passage in "Unveiling". Perhaps you are interpreting 2,300 mornings and evenings as 1,150 days?

Secondly, what are your thoughts on a possible connection between the dragon of Revelation and the constellation Draco? Said constellation will be the source of a meteor shower this year coinciding with the next full moon/blood moon on October 7-8:

Thanks. God bless. Grateful to have found your blog.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks Anon!

Yes the sequel will discuss the significance of the 2,300 mornings and evenings, which I will show gives another alternative date pertaining to the restoration of the land of Israel in the 20th century, taken from a precise anchor date given in the Book of Daniel itself.
There is some debate about whether the 2,300 mornings and evenings should be counted as 1,150 days, usually to make it fit in with the length of time from Antiochus IV's erection of the pagan altar to the re-dedication of the Temple by Judas Maccabeus. A lot of scholars note that it makes more sense that it is actually 2,300 days (2,300 mornings + 2,300 evenings). The curious wording could mean that there is a bit of both elements at play here.
Yes I have often thought about it relating to the constellation Draco. Thanks for pointing that out about the meteor shower - I didn't know about that!

Anonymous said...

You are welcome.

Yes, curious wording indeed, "evenings and mornings". Echoes of Genesis 1:1-31 "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." etc.

Looking forward to the sequel!

DO said...

Hello Emmett; sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I figure it's related enough.

I very much enjoy your posts, but I was troubled to see that you believe we Catholics who await the Era of Peace are millenarianist heretics.

Although I would not personally like to get into a debate on the matter, I urge you to read Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi's "Antichrist and the End Times" as well as his Doctoral Dissertation, "The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta"

If you read these with openness, I can just about assure you that you will have a change of heart.

In Christ, through Mary,
Daniel O'Connor

DO said...

Correction: Fr. Iannuzzi's work, The Splendor of Creation, would be better on this topic than Antichrist and the End Times.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure that Emmett has already read Iannuzzi's work.

I don't see how this modified form of mellenarianism can be considered by Catholics.

The Catechism clearly states in 677 " The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven" and 676 says "The Church has rejected even MODIFIED FORMS of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism."

I also think that such a belief must either be anti-semetic,or must make everyone Invincibly Ignorant. Why? Because even these semi-chialists who believe in a "eucharistic reign for 1000 years" still believe that the Jews don't convert until the End Times, just before Christ returns. The conversion of the Jews is the final sign.

So for 1,000 years while the entire rest of the world has converted to Catholicism, the Jews still won't have converted, even though they'll have seen unfathomable miracles that prove Catholicism and have no possible way of being invincibily ignorant of the Gospel, since they'll hear it from literally every other nation on Earth.

If people reject the Gospel and are vincibly ignorant, they go to Hell. That's dogma.

So every Jew during the Eucharistic reign who rejects the Gospel-- which we know they will up until Christ's return-- will go to Hell.

Otherwise, you have to insist that these Jews somehow remain invincibly ignorant, even though they've seen miracles beyond anythign in the history of the world, and see that the entire world has converted to Catholicism. If you can be invincibly ignorant in THAT world, then WOW, everyone MUST be invincibly ignorant in todays world too.

The distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance is thus rendered meaningless.

(Btw, I say this as a Jew on my fathers side)

DO said...

Few have read Iannuzzi's Dissertation carefully in full, "Anonymous," but I'll let Emmett answer for whether the has.

Obviously the Catechism rejects modified millenarianism. But you are the one calling the Reign of Peace "modified millenarianism," not the Church. I have a hunch that your prejudices against it would even have Pope St. Pius X condemned as a "modified millenarinist" in his Encyclical E Supremi, and Pius XI in his encyclical Quas Primas, which reads "When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony...Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together..." and **"If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth - he who came to reconcile all things..."**

As for your words regarding the Jews, I have no comment; I have never held nor do I know anyone who insists that the Jews will not convert in the Reign of Peace.

mariana said...

It is the Evangelical Protestants, not Catholics, who believe the Jews will convert. And it's the same Evangelical Protestants today, who have no problem with the Israeli government killing the Palestinians for a greater Israel.

"My opinion of Christian Zionists? They're scum. But don't tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now." - Bibi Netanyahu

Catholics have no real illusions towards the conversion of all the Jews during the reign of peace. But civility and love towards each other will be shared by all.

I pray for the Evangelicals who have all their faith in Netanyahu, instead of God.

mariana said...

I may be wrong Daniel, but where does it say all the Jews will convert during the reign of peace? I stand to be corrected.

Thank you

Rachmaninov said...

I wrote a book called "Heralds of the Second Coming" in which I discuss the contradictions of the era of peace theory. The popes have ruled it out completely. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith called the idea of an era of peace before the final coming of Jesus as a "doctrinal error"( 1995 notifiction on the writings of Vassula Ryden" Anthing which suggests conditions for a just life here and now is a form of millenarianism (to quote Benedict XVI in relation to liberation theology on a trip to Brazil in 2007). The mistake people like Fr Iannuzzi make is that they have a much narrower view of millenarianism that the popes do. John Paul II stated the world will continue as it is now until the very end. For more information on this subject, I did an interview on the subject on the Drew Mariani Radio show last week:

DO said...

Dear "Anonymous", Mariana, Rachmaninov, and whoever else:

Please do feel free to quote any *Magisterium* pertaining to what *specifically* is condemned regarding what a Catholic may believe about what is to come. Otherwise it's just your own opinion, and you are personally defining what I and others believe as modified millenarianism.

For my part, I have quoted the Magisterium saying specifically that, if only we do our part, Christ *will* establish that peace that He came to bestow upon us, *on this earth in human history*. (Do re-read my comment from 11 August 2014 18:37) And I am basically being called a heretic for believing precisely that?

Rachmaninov said...

As you know, Fr Ianuzzi argues that the judgment occurs in two stages rather than a single universal judgmemnt to take place at the end of time. Bearing that in mind, please read this from John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus annus:
"The Gospel parable of the weeds among the wheat (cf. Mt 13:24-30; 36-43) teaches that it is for God alone to separate the subjects of the Kingdom from the subjects of the Evil One, and that this judgment will take place at the end of time. By presuming to anticipate judgment here and now, man puts himself in the place of God and sets himself against the patience of God.

Through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, the victory of the Kingdom of God has been achieved once and for all. Nevertheless, the Christian life involves a struggle against temptation and the forces of evil. Only at the end of history will the Lord return in glory for the final judgment (cf. Mt 25:31) with the establishment of a new heaven and a new earth (cf. 2 Pt 3:13; Rev 21:1); but as long as time lasts the struggle between good and evil continues even in the human heart itself."
Its not a question of picking out individual points that the magisterium has condmened, rather its a simple fact: no era of peace of any kind before the Lord's return. There really is not argument about it.

DO said...

Thank you for the quote.

While I do not get into the specific details of what the Era of Peace will consist in (I have no desire to debate the *details* of how Fr. Iannuzzi thinks it will occur), I do strongly believe it will nevertheless come, and therefore am saddened when I see Catholics calling it a heresy.

I of course submit that Christ will not return in glory for the final judgment Day until the end of time, as well as to everything else in the quote from JPII's Centesimus Annus.

But that does not preclude the possibility of an Era of Peace. To say that it does is to pit JPII's Magisterium against Pius XI's, which of course would be ridiculous.

Rachmaninov said...

In E Supremi St Pius X thaught that perhaps the Antichrist was close-things were that evil. Now as we now the Catechism teaches that he comes directly before the end of the world, how could Pius X have taught of a temporal era of peace to come before the Antichrist? He is in perfect harmony with all the popes teachings after- and for that matter Pius XI also thaught the Antichrist was close as the times were so evil.

DO said...

Then you are contradicting yourself, for Pius XI evidently thought it quite possible that a time of great, Godly peace was to come by his own words in Quas Primas!

mariana said...

Daniel O'Connor is right. There is an era of peace coming, even Fatima promised it. Although the consecration of Russia was accepted in the 80's, there was still turmoil in the America's. The peace on a worldwide scale has not come.

My question is Daniel, during the era of peace will ALL Jews convert to Catholicism? Will it be like Ez 37:24-28, "...they shall have one shepherd?"

In Isaiah 2:2-5, "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord." (Notice that it says, the Lord will decide for many people, but it doesn't say all people.)

mariana said...

Rachmaninov, please read 1Corinthians 23: "...but each one in proper order: Christ the first fruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ; then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

After the Last Judgment, the universe will be completely renewed. This new renewal is the the New Heaven and the New Earth.

But St Paul said the order of events will be: All humans are dead, and then the General Judgment.

How can the "righteous shall reign in the earth" come if we are all dead? The sacred reign must come before the Last Judgment.

Satan will be bound during the era of peace, but "he will be loosed afresh, and being sent forth from prison, will go forth and assemble all the nations, which shall then be trader the dominion of the righteous, that they may make war against the holy city." Lactantius.

Rachmaninov said...

The encyclical Quas primas in no way can be viewed as supporting the idea of a millenial reign. What the Pope was referring to was the aspiration for the Gospel to spread and be accepted throughout the world. Pius XI confirms already that the Catholic Church is the Kingdom of Christ on earth (no.12)therefore affirming St Augustine's view that the reign of Christ of Rev 20 is already with us, rather than the view of Fr Ianuzzi that it is still to come in the future. The problem with adherents to your view is that quotes are always being taken out of context. For instance in Quas primas, Pius XI says "If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth" Notice he says if not they will. The Pope at no 24 then laments about how nations have abandoned the Lord and his Church. The document follows very much the theme of the papal world day of peace messages. Yes there is always the desire to promote peace and harmony among nations, but true peace, that of Christ will only come at the end of time. This quote from the congregation for the Doctrine of Faith's international theological commission sums up very well the error of expecting an inter historical era of peace:
" There is silence about eschatology today for other reasons, of which we single out one: that is, the rebirth of the tendency to establish an innerworldly eschatology. This tendency is well known in the history of theology, and beginning with the Middle Ages it constituted what came to be called “the spiritual heritage of Joachim de Fiore”.9

This tendency is found in some theologians of liberation, who so insist on the importance of establishing the kingdom of God as something within our own history on earth that the salvation which transcends history seems to become of rather secondary interest. Certainly, these theologians do not deny in any way the truth of realities beyond human life and history. But since the kingdom of God is located in a society without divisions, “the third age” in which “the eternal Gospel” (Rev 14:6-7) and the kingdom of the Spirit are to flourish is introduced in a new and secularized form.10

In this way a certain kind of “eschaton” is brought within historical time. This “eschaton” is not presented as the ultimate absolute, but as a relative absolute. Nonetheless, Christian praxis is directed so exclusively to the establishment of this eschaton that the Gospel is read reductively, so that whatever pertains to the eschatological realities absolutely considered is in great part passed over in silence. In this way, in a theological system of this sort, “one places oneself within the perspective of a temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the expressions of secularisation of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the immanence of human history.”
If the popes say we should expect no change in society in terms of its battle between good and evil until the end of the world, then we should accept that. Jesus didnt talk to St Faustina about an intermediate coming, he said prepare for the final coming.
One further point, anonymous makes a great point about the conversion of the Jews. The Church says they will only convert en masse at the very end of the world- as St Paul states their conversion will bring abou the resurrection of the dead. It is therefore impossible that the Jews can convert at an earlier time just before the era of peace, Just as the Antichrist will not come until the very end. Millenarians get the chronology of events that the Church has already defined completely wrong.

DO said...

The same problem is just yet again rearing its head: you are begging the question. You are labeling my awaiting the Era of Peace as identical to things condemned by the Magisterium -- whereas my entire point is that the type of Era of Peace I await is not one of those things. I have never advocated for an in-history "modified millenarianism," "innerworldly eschatology," or whatever else.

I am sure we are all guilty of taking quotes out of context, but I for one have long studied Quas Primas quite carefully, so that is certainly not my issue here. I do, however, see your quotes not as pulling things out of context, but as you not really grasping the context you are presenting. The 1992 CDF Document you cite (in the very quote you provide) condemns a "new and secularized form" of the kingdom of the Spirit, and a relegation of the Four Last Things to "secondary interest." Neither could possibly be further from the truth of those in my camp who await the Era of Peace. And we absolutely do not promote any sort of innerworldly eschatology.

If you really are going to continue to insist that this quote from the CDF is directed against people who believe that some sort of Era of Peace will come (people who, mind you, are about as pious and Heaven-focused and forgetful of the secular worldly things as they come), then I cannot help but be tempted to despair of having a meaningful intellectual discussion with you. This is clearly a condemnation of liberation theology and all of the nonsense that came with that.

I on the other hand present to you a Pope in an Encyclical explicitly saying that *the very peace that Christ came to bring* can indeed be established on this Earth in time, and you dismiss it because "The document follows very much the theme of the papal world day of peace messages," and go on to say (without any Magisterial backing) "true peace, that of Christ will only come at the end of time"? Try again, my friend! I hope I don't have to say any more for the inadequacy (to put it lightly) of that attempt to be manifest.

In Christ, through Mary,

Rachmaninov said...

Please tell me, what do you expect the state of the world and humanity to be in this era of peace?
Do you expect the entire world catholic? Do you see those if heaven now resurrected to live here below for a symbolic 1000 years
Do you expect Jesus to reign in some kind of more explicit way than he does now?
Will evil still be present in the world in individuals and society as a whole?

DO said...

Like I said I don't stray much into anticipating the details (I meditate on Heaven, not on what the Era of Peace will bring), but I will at least say this:

I anticipate Christ will reign on Earth as He now reigns in the world's best Monastery. That being said, there will be even more benefits, since even a well-ordered Monastery suffers from the consequences of the disorder of the nation and world in which it rests. I also believe that very few, if any, people really understand how much of our physical ills stem from sin, and how rid of said ills we would be if only we would truly enthrone Christ as King in every respect.

I do not suspect this will come as the result of human effort, as the secular messianists and inner-worldly eschatology-minded folks do. Nor do I suspect there is some sort of intermediate span resting between the final judgment and the end of history. Nor do I believe we will have the Beatific Vision on Earth. Nor do I believe the Deposit of Faith can ever be in the least bit altered (as the followers of Joachim of Flora did).

I do not take a stand on the more difficult questions, like whether those who have died will be resurrected and be present on Earth in some way. While I reject the notion that such claims must automatically be heretical, I also do not bother much with them, for my belief that some sort of Era of Peace is to come does not rest upon them.

So I leave you with two points:
1) Recall that God can work in the world whatever He has worked in an individual, and recall what He has done in the Blessed Virgin Mary even on this earth.
2) Be very careful not so set up a personal pseudo-Magisterium which readily applies the condemnation of the Magisterium to in *some way* related, but not substantially equivalent, teachings. All who do so wind up pulling an Acts 26:14, or an Acts 5:39

And above all, let us both devote ourselves to what matters: spreading mercy while the Time of Mercy remains, for it shall not remain much longer, as the Time of Justice is on the very doorstep. I suspect we can both agree on that.

In Christ, through Mary,

Rachmaninov said...

With respect I do not set up a personal pseudo magisterium.
I simply refer people to what the real magisterium says, and on this point no matter it has spoken. I quote from the CDF notification on the supposed revelation to Mrs Vassula Ryden (which on the vatican website lists it as a doctrinal document):"In addition to pointing out the suspect nature of the ways in which these alleged revelations have occurred, it is necessary to underscore several doctrinal errors they contain...These alleged revelations predict an imminent period when the Antichrist will prevail in the Church. In millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final, glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ's definitive coming, anh era of peace and universal prosperity"
Daniel, you cant get clearer than that. Quite simply in the view of the magisterium to expect an era of peace before Christ's second coming is a doctrinal error.They have left no wriggle room. By using the term millenial style it is not restricting it to chiliasm or other pure forms of millenarianism-which is why Pope Benedict XVI referred to liberation theology as aform of millenarianism. Lets remember all private revelation has to fit into the magisterial intepretation rather than the other way round(which seems to be the problem many apparition followers have)

DO said...

Again you are ignoring the words that specify precisely what is being condemned. I am not saying the Era of Peace is initiated by Christ's *final, glorious* coming.

It is for your opinion that the Church leaves no wiggle room; for again, you condemn what has already been Magisterially taught (in an Encyclical no less) by Pius XI.

Rachmaninov said...

You wrote "Again you are ignoring the words that specify precisely what is being condemned. I am not saying the Era of Peace is initiated by Christ's *final, glorious* coming."
Your last point there hits the nail on the head. It is precisely the fact that you say an era of peace is coming which has no relation to Christs'final coming. That is the problem. The CDF and popes have ruled out any era of peace if it comes tomorrow, next year or three hundred years from now. Timing is irrelevant;the fact is there will be no era of peace at all until the new heaven and new earth come as described in Rev 21 after the last judgent. That is what the Church teaches

DO said...

...and yet you can't find me a single Magisterial quote (I have already addressed each one you provided) to back up that's what the Church teaches... whereas I can provide an Encyclical that contradicts it...

Rachmaninov said...

I thin the Centissimus Annus quote of John Paul II says everything that needs to be said. John XXIII and Benedict XVI said the same thing.Tell me. where in the Gosepl does Jesus suggest a temporal era of peace?

Rachmaninov said...

And you, Risen Lord,
who have overcome tribulation and death,
grant us your peace!
We know that peace will be fully revealed at the end of time,
when you come in glory.
John Paul II Easter Urbi et Orbi 2002. He also had "will be fully revealed" in italics.
Benedict XVI in Light of the World rufutes the idea that history will suddenly take a huge turnaround.

Rachmaninov said...

Lord, make your promise come fully true. Break the rods of the oppressors. Burn the tramping boots. Let the time of the garments rolled in blood come to an end. Fulfil the prophecy that “of peace there will be no end” (Is 9:7). We thank you for your goodness, but we also ask you to show forth your power. Establish the dominion of your truth and your love in the world – the “kingdom of righteousness, love and peace”.
That was from Benedict XVI's Christmas Mass homily 2010. why did he pray for a peace with no end to come now if a temporal era of peace is coming first?
Remember these are magisterial writings

DO said...

1) I know that the *full revelation* of Christ's peace will only come at the end of time

2) I already addressed the Centissimus Annus quote

3) If we are just exchanging quotes without addressing the meat of each other's posts anyway ;-) ...

Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum " It will at length be possible that our many wounds be healed and all justice spring forth again with the hope of restored authority; that the splendors of peace be renewed, and swords and arms drop from the hand when all men shall acknowledge the empire of Christ and willingly obey His word, and "Every tongue shall confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" (Philippians ii, II)."

Pius XI, Ubi Arcani Dei Consiloi "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring." (John x, 16) He cannot but rejoice in the wonderful prophecy which filled even the Sacred Heart of Jesus with joy. "And they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." May God, and We join with you and with all the faithful in this prayer, shortly bring to fulfillment His prophecy by transforming this consoling vision of the future into a present reality."

Pius XI, Quas Primas "When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.
If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent.
Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.
Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! "Then at length," to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, "then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father."[33]

St. Pius X, E Supremi: "Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion; and We, in demanding that same liberty, are defending not only the sacred rights of religion, but are also consulting the common weal and the safety of nations. For it continues to be true that "piety is useful for all things" (I. Tim. iv., 8) - when this is strong and flourishing "the people will" truly "sit in the fullness of peace" (Is. xxxii., 18)."

(All utterly, absolutely clearly referring to the temporal)

DO said...

If I feel you have honestly, fully addressed all of those *Magisterial* quotes that *specifically* permit (if not blatantly endorse) my view, then I shall respond. Otherwise, goodnight and God Bless! (and refer again to my closing of my comment at 12 August 2014 15:50 )

mariana said...

The Church has never taken an official stand on this subject, therefore one can interpret either way. This was the answer from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

The Second Coming is to unite the Church. It's not about the end of the world. Christ comes the second time to console and unite the Church here on earth through the Eucharist. Christ will not end the world without giving many the chance to see the truth and to unite with his mother. The triumph of her Immaculate Heart cannot triumph except in the triumph of Christ, which will entail finally, an obedience and holiness from all Christians, and convert others, as well.

Focusing on the end for the Antichrist to come is such a Protestant belief. The Antichrist has always been here since the days of Judas Iscariot.

The Antichrist was there when the minds of the Jews hardened towards Christ. He was there planning with the False Prophet Mohammad. And he was there with the Christian schism.

The New Israel, not "the new earth and new heaven" is the Church. And the Church is the one Daniel speaks of in the bible. He refers to the Antichrist entering the Church, and not the temple of Jerusalem.

Tell me Rachmaninov, you're not one to believe we have to wait for the 4th temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem for the Second Coming to arrive?

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Cor 3: 16-17.

We are the Church, and we are the one's being attacked by the Antichrist today. The temple of God is in our souls and bodies. It is the Roman Catholic Church who stands against issues such as, gay marriage, women priests, contraception, pre marital sex, abortion, and even killing innocent human beings in the name of God, or killing for a greater "Israel."

The first Pentecost took place in the cenacle of Jerusalem and it transformed the apostles and the disciples. The second Pentecost will take place on a worldwide scale. And it will transform the hearts and souls of those who want war, who hate, who lie.

Peace will come. Fatima promised.

Rachmaninov said...

let me quote for you Pope Benedict XVI's general audience from November 12 2008 in which he clearly teaches, as does the Catechism and St Paul, that the Antichrist as a person will come beofre the end "In his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul changes his perspective. He speaks of the negative incidents that must precede the final and conclusive event. We must not let ourselves be deceived, he says, to think that, according to chronological calculations, the day of the Lord is truly imminent: "On the question of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we beg you, brothers, not to be so easily agitated or terrified, whether by an oracular utterance, or rumor, or a letter alleged to be ours, into believing that the day of the Lord is here. Let no one seduce you, no matter how" (2: 1-3). The continuation of this text announces that before the Lord's arrival there will be apostasy, and one well described as the "man of lawlessness", "the son of perdition" (2: 3) must be revealed, who tradition would come to call the Antichrist"
Concerning the second coming as taught by the Magisterium, it is certainly not linked to any earlier time in salvation history-only the end of the world as in the words of St John Paul II in his encyclical Ecclesia De Eucharistia "Contemplating her, assumed body and soul into heaven, we see opening up before us those “new heavens” and that “new earth” which will appear at the second coming of Christ. Here below, the Eucharist represents their pledge, and in a certain way, their anticipation: “Veni, Domine Iesu!” (Rev 22:20).Or Pope Francis in a general audience of 24 April 2013 which could be more explicit: "Lastly, a word about the passage on the Last Judgement in which the Lord’s Second Coming is described, when he will judge all human beings, the living and the dead (cf. Mt 25: 31-46)"
Mariana, the triumph, as the Catechism states can only come through the final persecution not by some gradual ascendancy. The CDF never stated one could interpret it either way, that as you know comes from a supposed quote of Cardinal Ratzinger in 1990 and we dont know the exact question he was asked. But what we do know is Ratzinger wrote about an era of peace within history several times in the 1970's and was comletely negative about the idea, saying that it is false because human history always has to have the freedom to choose good or evil, something st John XXIII also said. Personally, I follow the teaching of the Church in these matters as that is what we are asked to do.

mariana said...


Thank you for your response, and of course, I agree with you that before the end of the world the Antichrist comes.

Let me send you the info on this that you might be interested in reading: https://www.ewtn.eom/expert/answers/endtimes.htm

"As Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out (in the context of the message of Fatima), we are not at the end of the world. In fact, the Last Judgment (understood as the physical return of Christ) cannot occur until the full number of the Gentiles are converted, followed by "all Israel."

So, Daniel is correct when he says, the Jews will convert following the conversion and unity of Christians during the Intermediate Coming which in fact is the Second Coming, not the Last Judgment. Mankind will still be living at the Second Coming. The Last Judgment is the resurrection of the dead. Earth will have passed away for the Last Judgment to occur.

"According to our Cathechism (673-677) these are the general order of events at the end of times:
1. The full number of the Gentiles come into the Church (all Christian Churches unite).
2. The "full inclusion of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles." (#2 will follow quickly on, in the wake of , #1).
3. Then a final trial of the Church in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme deception is that of the Antichrist.
4. Christ's victory over this final unleashing of evil through a cosmic upheaval of this passing world and the Last Judgment."

"The optimism of the Pope for the "New Evangelization" and a "Civilization of Love" in the Third Millennium of Christianity
fits here, as well. This would place us, therefore, in the period just before the events spoken of in the Cathechism, that is, on the verge of the evangelization of the entire world."

God bless

Rachmaninov said...

Mariana,From your last post, you obviously do not accept what Pope Francis wrote about the second coming being the same event as the last jugment. Just to add further evidence to what I have written, this further quote is from St John Paul II's homily from December 3rd 2000 ""Watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man" (Lk 21: 36). Today's liturgy tells us of the Lord's "second coming"; that is, it speaks of Christ's glorious return, which will coincide with what, in simple terms, is called "the end of the world".
Would you now accept that the second coming does not refer to any earlier event in salvation history before the end of the world?

mariana said...

I am a believer of Fr Gobbi, Mother Angelica, and the Garabandal apparition. They all spoke of the era of peace after the Warning and Miracle.

Something big has to happen if Christians unite and all the Jews convert. Something as triumphant as the Crucifixion of Our Lord. Otherwise, how else will these things happen? The Second Pentecost has not happened yet. I believe when it does it will finally change the hearts of men, and we will enjoy peace for some time, before the Antichrist comes.

The man-made 9-11 tragedy in New York brought a sense of unity and comradeship to the world, but it didn't last. It has to be the type of Warning that everyone will know it comes from God.

Sr Faustina mentioned a cross in the sky, that the whole world would see. So many Saints, Church father's, and even Pope's believed in such an event, so it's quite clear to me God has a plan to convert as many people as possible before the end of the world.

Anonymous said...

"Preparing the great celebration of the Centennial year of the first apparition of Our Lady of Fatima in seven more years (on the 13th of May, 2017). These coming seven years hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity." Pope Benedict XV (Fatima May 2010).

Rachmaninov said...

you didnt actually answer the question: Do you accept the official teaching that the second coming takes place at the end of tbe world.
Also have a look here at an analysis of Fr Gobbi's messages in which I show how they do not prophesy a temporal era of peace but actually the second coming followed by an era of peace without end:

mariana said...

By the way, I love your name. I read the article "Heralds of the Second Coming," and it was quite good.

But I must say the author Mr Walford is incorrect when he thinks the era of peace has no end. Why would it be called the "end of times" if there was no end time involved?

"The End of the World means that there will be the final judgment; both the world and time will no longer exist. After the final judgment there will be the resurrection of the body; paradise for the good and hell for the evil."

"The "end of time" refers to these present times, which are possessed by the evil one. In fact, today the evil one is in the world; he is the master of the world. But the world was created by God and for God; Jesus has redeemed it. During these years we carry the weight of the cross which Jesus carried on his own shoulders for our redemption, and we contribute to our redemption by carrying our own cross."

"But when this evil is defeated, we will have a time in which God will reign, in which the world will be glorified through this communion with God. This will be the end of these times possessed by evil, in order to begin the new times possessed by God in which He will be glorified."

Fr Gobbi

mariana said...

We are awaiting the end of the "end times" today, and hoping for the "return of Jesus in glory." "The triumph of Jesus in glory will occur when He will give a glorious manifestation of Himself which will be visible to all."

"This will coincide - listen well - with the great triumph of the divine mercy: a second Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit will transform the hearts and souls of all, who will see themselves in the light of divine truth, bringing them to convert and return to God."

Rachmaninov - I believe what Fr Gobbi says in the above sentences is the prophecy of the Warning and Miracle experienced by the seers of Garabandal, and seen by Sr Faustina and many other Saints.

According to Father Gobbi this Second Pentecost or "Intermediate Coming" or call it His "Second Coming" "will also coincide with the fulfillment of what we say in the Our Father: the Father being glorified by all creation; the reign of God coming into our midst - a reign which will be above all a reign of grace, of sanctity, of love, of peace and of communion."

Christ is coming to save those who don't believe in the Eucharist to convert and receive him. The end is not coming, yet. A new beginning for all men and women will be coming instead. This will not only be his most amazing triumph over Satan, but it will be the most amazing mercy for those who don't know Him today.

May faithfulness bring the reign of Christ to all people's soon, and may the the cohort of her children, formed in every part of the world, remain in her spirit till the end of times.

Take care Rachmaninov

Anonymous said...

I have not sifted through all the posts here and it might have been answered already. Is this Reign of Peace ("modified millenarianism," or whatever form it is), the same Reign of Peace of Fatima , the era of peace or is it the literal 1000 year biblically protestant interpretation?

anon 88

mariana said...

Hi Anon, yes it's the same reign of peace in Fatima. And as for the 1000 years, time for God has no daily or annual limits, so we don't know how long it will take.

Rachmaninov said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Emmett O'Regan said...

Sorry for the late contribution to this discussion everyone - I was away on holiday in a remote location in Donegal, and didn't have access to the internet.
Hi Daniel - I think it would be unfair to label anyone who adheres to Fr Iannuzzi's rather idiosyncratic version of eschatology as a heretic, since the Church has not yet specifically condemned his teachings. Joaichim de Fiore is not considered a heretic, even though he espoused ideas (e.g. on the "third status") that were later condemned as heretical. Given that his teachings were only condemned by the Church posthumously, he was not given the chance to be corrected on this matter. Same goes for the chiliastic teachings of some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr.
But Fr Iannuzzi's writings on the Millennium closely follow a template which has been repeatedly condemned by the Church, and is directly at odds with the traditional Augustinian model of Catholic eschatology. It is only a matter of time before they are condemned with specific reference to this spiritual form of millenarianism, but correctly speaking, it doesn't seem that Fr. Iannuzzi has of yet been directly challenged on this matter by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and given the chance to retract his thesis. He could only be classified as a heretic if he persisted in espousing these beliefs after he has been corrected by the Church on this matter, which hasn't happened yet. But I wouldn't hold out too much in hope in this respect, given the fact that throughout history the Church has repeatedly condemned millenarianism in whatever form it takes, whether it is a "spiritual" type or not. Keep in mind that Joachim de Fiore is still classified by academics as a millenarian, even though that he also posited a spiritual reign during the Millennium.
It is a grave mistake to underestimate the influence that Augustinian eschatology has had on the development of Catholic theology for the past 1,500 years. The amillennialism of Augustine was the dominant form of eschatology even amongst Protestants, up until the beginning of the Dispensationalist movement in the 19th century. The Augustinian tradition concerning the Millennium isn't just embraced by Catholics, but also the Orthodox Church, and almost every mainline Protestant denomination. Since the 5th century, all of Catholic theology has been centered around the eschatology of St. Augustine, and it has influenced the development of all subsequent magisterial teachings pertaining to the Second Coming, including the Catechism. The fact that the only modern Catholic theologian to reject the amillennialism of St. Augustine is Fr. Iannuzzi should invite us to consider who is right and who is wrong - every Catholic theologian since St. Augustine, or Fr. Iannuzzi?

DO said...

Thank you for your response Emmett, and no need to apologize: delays are good, as they give time for tempers to cool ;-).

While I again would not go so far as to defend details of Fr. Iannuzzi's view of the Era of Peace, he nevertheless well defends its coming existence.

Earlier in this comment thread I brought up specifics of Joachim of Flora that prove it would be a huge injustice to Fr. Iannuzi to compare the two. The former blatantly posited a temporal end of the era of Revealed Faith as we now know it; the former merely posits its fulfillment will come in part within history, not to have one jot or tittle altered.

I understand the approach of "let's condemn Fr. Iannuzi's view on the Era of Peace because look at all the other millenialists or quasi-millenialists who were condemned" seems the safest route to take, but it simply is not supported by the facts.

Anyway, while I would not do it justice, I do know that Fr. Iannuzzi very adequately addresses the Augustine/Millenial issue in The Splendor of Creation.

My biggest concern with seeing any sort of an Era of Peace condemned by those who like us try to see the signs of the times is that it must entail the condemnation of so many valid seers. Chief among them is the Servant of God Luisa Piccarretta. The revelations of Jesus to this soul prophecy significantly on the Era of Peace. Keep in mind that the recently canonized St. Hanibal de Francis was one of her spiritual directors and confessors. And mark my words, her cause will continue to advance.

jim.carroll said...

Greetings, Mr. O'Regan! I hope you enjoyed your holiday in Donegal. Having said that, I can only say, "HA!" I think we all know you where hiding out there, only to be hunted down by a group of fans, who dragged you back kicking and screaming, to chain you to your keyboard!

I understand that your sequel to "Understanding the Apocalypse" will deal with speculations on some of the numbers that figure prominently in Daniel and other prophetic Scripture. I don't know if you've ever taken the time to read "Temple at the Center of Time" by David Flynn. He starts out exploring Sir Isaac Newton's writings on Biblical prophecy. Newton started out as a geometer and was obsessed with determining the value of the "Sacred Cubit", hoping to use that to calculate the size of the Earth (necessary to determine it's mass, which was essential to determining the effects of gravity on planetary orbits.) In all of this, the number 2520 comes up frequently (i.e., the Sacred Cubit is supposed to be 25.20 inches long). Flynn has some observations that may prove useful. Or not. It's hard to tell sometimes with these dispensational millenialists. (He also has some interesting things to say how in the precessional wobble, the tail of Draco [the Dragon] will sweep a third of the stars from the sky.)

And now I'd REALLY like to jump off the high board into the shallow end of the pool.

There is an alleged locutionist in Minnesota named "Jennifer" who has a web site called "Words From Jesus". She is not an approved locutionist but her messages do have her bishop's imprimatur. Part of a message from 1/20/2010 says, "My Child, I have come to warn My Children that the dust of the earth will rise up, and before the wheat takes root in the fields, mankind will be awakened. The earth will shake again and again, for it will echo the pains of labor. I say to you, a woman has the pains of labor because of man's sin, and the earth is responding according to the depth of man’s sin."

This made me sit up and take notice because for reasons beyond this message, I have been paying attention to the New Madrid Fault System (NMFS), located around New Madrid, Missouri. It produces VERY strong earthquakes about once per century. (The series in 1812-13 toppled chimneys and rang church-bells in Boston.) Earthquakes cause "the dust of the earth [to] rise up." Long story short (too late!), the Oct. 7/8 date of the Draconid meteors and the blood moons matches the time when wheat will be planted but before the wheat takes root along a good part of the NMFS.

LMK if you want more details.

mariana said...

Oh Jim and Missouri is under such turmoil right now!

I would be interested in knowing more about the seer Jennifer. Never heard of her. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

You can delete the post all you like the fact remains. Believe nothing after 1960 because from the pictures it is clearly evident that woman they trotted out as "sr. Lucia" was not even close to the same woman. Look at the pictures, compare the lips, teeth, eyes, chin, mouth, a different woman altogether. Bury your head in the sand Emmet and read some more of jp2's encyclicals.