Let me quantify that post please. I have sent a message to the webmaster of the site I found that on, asking him to clarify his intention of being strictly a Catholic venue or if it is to be an ecumenical blend. If it is the latter, I will ask Padrig to delete that post. It is far from my intention to ADD ANY confusion! I have an a older copy of the Vat II Catechism form college. Perhaps there is some reference in there.
Dolours, There is a lot of information in this post but something that you wrote really caught my attention, something that I had been thinking about yesterday. It is related to what I stated in another post on this thread that history may repeat itself in regards to the Antichrist and the False Prophet in comparison to Christ and John the Baptist. You brought up the 3.5 year reign of the Antichrist and it is interesting that Christ is thought to have began his ministry at around 30 years old when he was baptized by John the Baptist and he is also thought to have been crucified at 33 years old. So Christ's ministry was around 3 years long maybe even 3.5 years long exactly before he was killed, just like what we are taught about the Antichrist at "the end".
"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist..." Since Rome has been seen as a "seat", since Peter had to flee Jerusalem, it could be that that temporal designation and its environs so connected to it will be seen as nothing more than a place that is given in or over to that spirit of this world.....ruled from the beginning by Satan. Look at it already....pretty ripe for invasion from all sides as it so weakened. The natural signs of disaster occurring are warning signs to this region, so blessed by the martyrs, itself, as it has laid the groundwork for losing its former designation, becoming unworthy. The Antichrist can rule from anywhere but may have many formerly important locales under his power....this becoming one of them. The unity of the Church will be dissolved there from within and its protection thus lessened. So it becomes a trophy to the limited power of the fallen angels and whomever they appoint to work through.
ComeSoon, Your concern may be over the placement of the Era of Peace and Mark Mallett's description of such. This post is from Jimmy Akin a Senior Apologist for Catholic Answers and one of EWTN's Catholic Experts.(https://www.ewtn.com/faith/QA/expertslist.htm). It is very well done imho and it answers a few questions that we have been discussing on MOG lately including the title of the article, Will the Jerusalem Temple Ever Be Rebuilt?, along with a brief explanation of the 1,000 year reign of Christ and the Church's teaching on this. A quick chronology of the last events of the end times is given in the paragraph titled, Catholic Teaching which I highlighted below. In the paragraph, Jimmy Akin states that the following is Catholic teaching, It [the Catholic Church] teaches that there will be a future appearance of the Antichrist that will precede the Second Coming. When Jesus returns, however, the Last Judgment and the eternal order will begin immediately. Will the Jerusalem Temple Ever Be Rebuilt? Jimmy Akin December 05, 2017 Jesus prophesied that the Jerusalem temple would be destroyed within a generation, and it was. Jewish rebels began a war against the Romans in A.D. 66, and four years later the temple lay in ruins. Will it ever be rebuilt? Many Jews and Christians think so, even claiming that this must happen in order for certain prophecies to be fulfilled. My fellow Catholic apologist Tom Nash isn’t one of them. In a recent article at Catholic World Report, he argues that the temple will never be rebuilt. Let’s look at what he has to say. Advocates of Rebuilding the Temple Nash takes a special interest in a group of people known as premillennialists, who believe that, after the Second Coming, Jesus will reign on earth for a thousand years or more before the Last Judgment and the beginning of the eternal order. In recent years, many premillennialists have also belonged to a school of thought known as dispensationalism, and dispensationalists commonly have certain additional beliefs, including: There will be a rapture of believers several years before the Second Coming. The Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt before the Second Coming. The Antichrist will proclaim himself to be God in the Jerusalem temple. After the Second Coming, there will also be a temple in Jerusalem (either the same one, a reconsecrated one, or a new one). During the millennium, animal sacrifices will be offered at this temple in memory of what Jesus did on the cross. As some of their characteristic beliefs indicate, dispensationalists hold that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt in order for certain prophecies to be fulfilled. They are not the only ones who believe this. As Nash indicates, many Jews also believe that there will be a future temple. Some think this will not happen until the future, messianic age. Others think it could happen sooner. Some Jews also would favor reinstituting animal sacrifices at the temple, while other Jews would prefer it to serve simply as a house of prayer. Catholic Teaching The Catholic Church rejects premillennialism (see CCC 676, where it is treated under the name “millenarianism”). It teaches that there will be a future appearance of the Antichrist that will precede the Second Coming. When Jesus returns, however, the Last Judgment and the eternal order will begin immediately. The Church does not take a position on whether there will be a rebuilt temple. Nash’s view that there will not be one is a legitimate Catholic theological opinion. However, so is the contrary view. As we will see, respected Catholics have advocated the view there will be a future temple. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/will-the-jerusalem-temple-ever-be-rebuilt continued ...
continued from above, The Fulfillment Argument In his article, Nash cites several factors pointing to the fact that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, and so animal sacrifices are no longer necessary. His fundamental conclusion is correct: Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial economy. One can even strengthen his argument, for Jesus not only predicted the destruction of the temple (Mark 13), he also identified himself with the temple (John 2:13-22). The destruction of the temple thus in some ways parallels the destruction of Jesus’ body on the cross, and Jesus takes the place of the temple for Christians (Rev. 21:22). The main difficulty comes when Nash draws this conclusion: So to think that God would authorize the reinstitution of temple sacrifices is to misunderstand his salvific work and also, unwittingly, blaspheme Jesus, who rendered void the need for such inferior sacrifices. Blasphemy (even unwitting) is a harsh charge, and it is not clear that it would be warranted in the case of dispensationalists. They think millennial sacrifices will not be needed but that they will be a way to commemorate what Jesus did on the cross. Of course, Catholics make even stronger claims than this regarding the Eucharist, which not only commemorates but re-presents the sacrifice of the cross. The key problem is that Nash seems to assume that God must “authorize the reinstitution of temple sacrifices” for the temple to be rebuilt. But many things happen in God’s prophetic plan that aren’t positively willed by God (e.g., the appearance of the Antichrist and his evil activities). Jesus certainly fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial economy, and God does not will that animal sacrifices resume, but that doesn’t mean that at some point some Jews won’t build a temple in Jerusalem—whether as a house of prayer or a house of sacrifice. Thus, if there are prophecies of a future temple, they need to be taken seriously. The Julian Argument Nash also cites the example of the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate, who tried to rebuild the temple in A.D. 363 but who was thwarted, with reports of unusual and possibly supernatural events playing a role in his decision to cease his efforts. This failed attempt to rebuild could be taken as evidence for Nash’s position that God does not will the temple ever to be rebuilt, but it could also be taken as evidence that it was not God’s will to allow the temple to be rebuilt then. Julian the Apostate can be seen as a forerunner of the Antichrist, and his plan to rebuild the temple as a foreshadowing of what the Antichrist will do. Julian didn’t get to carry the project through simply because it wasn’t yet God’s time. St. Paul on the Temple Are there prophecies that point to a future temple? A famous passage in St. Paul reads: Let no one deceive you in any way; for [the day of our Lord Jesus Christ] will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess. 2:3-4). Interpreters have proposed a number of possibilities for what temple Paul is referring to, including God’s heavenly temple, the Church, or a purely metaphorical temple. However, one of the strongest possibilities is that he was referring to the Jerusalem temple. This is especially likely given the recent background to this letter, which was written around A.D. 50. Less than a decade earlier, the Roman emperor Caligula, who claimed divine honors, had attempted to have his statue put in the Jerusalem temple—an event that Caligula’s assassination prevented. This plan produced a major convulsion in the Jewish community, and the thought of a satanic “man of lawlessness” taking his seat “in the temple of God” and “proclaiming himself to be God” is naturally understood in terms of a world ruler doing this in the Jerusalem temple. Since this didn’t happen before A.D. 70, the prophecy could point to a future temple—and Caligula, like Julian, could be a forerunner of the Antichrist. Church Fathers Weigh In So what happened after the temple was destroyed? How did the Church Fathers interpret Paul’s prophecy? They had a variety of views. Some thought the passage applied to the Church, but others simply inferred that the temple would be rebuilt and that the Antichrist would take his seat in Jerusalem. Advocates of this view include: St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 5:25:4 and 5:30:4) St. Hippolytus of Rome (Antichrist 6) St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 15:15) We thus have a mixed tradition, with some Fathers and Doctors (Cyril is both) advocating the view that Paul’s prophecy points to a future Jerusalem temple. And so, Nash’s view that the temple will never be rebuilt should not be ruled out. But in light of Paul’s prophecy and its historical background, and the mixed tradition in the Church Fathers, the possibility of a future temple should be taken seriously.
AED, do you happen to know if the Fr. Roux from the MMP you mentioned in your post here is the same Fr. Roux that is a priest here in Maine? In Lewiston I think.
Thanks everyone who has contributed to this thread. I have been very busy this week and so haven't really had time to post much, but I am just catching up on it now and there is a lot of thought provoking material here.
There is a retired priest (who is still somewhat active) here named Fr. Roux and I happened to wind up in confession with him once. He spoke to me about the End Times and Mary, etc. Basically the things we talk about here. He is one of the only priests I ever came across in real life that spoke that way. He is very Spirit filled and that was why I was wondering if it might be the same person.
Thank you Carol love the post! But I have another possibility. What if the future Temple of God is our bodies, and not a physical building?
Byron, Your welcome. That, of course, is an article from Jimmy Akin and he is answering the question of whether or not a physical temple will be built in Jerusalem. Mr. Akin gives arguments for either case being a possibility. I do believe that our bodies are the temple in the sense that we receive the Lord in the form of the Holy Eucharist and hence, the Lord has been reigning with us for 1,000 years (an indefinite long time) but that does not mean that someone in the future won't build a temple in Jerusalem. I am still wondering what your answers are on the following questions that I asked you a few posts back: What is your chronology of end times events? Do you agree with Desmond Birch on this? In brief, Birch has a minor chastisement, an era of peace, a major chastisement/the time of the Antichrist and then what Jimmy Akin has stated in that article, the Last Judgment and the eternal order.
Has anyone heard anything else on the FBI text's on the secret society. Trey Gowdy mentioned it yesterday.
Thanks Byron I don't know the first name of the priest I went to, he had a full head of hair which was very white. He was kindly and seemed in good health. My guess is he was about 80. Do you know if Fr. Roux of the MMP did pass away recently? When I met him it was only in the spring of 2015, so it wasn't very long ago. I was actually so impressed by him I felt prompted to ask him to be my spiritual director, but I didn't want to impose on him, so I never did.
Byron, I am not familiar with Fr. Gobbi's chronology so I can't comment about it. Maybe you can provide a link so I can read up about he says. Thanks.
Praetorian - I've googled and no info on his passing. Apparently he resigned back in 2010 as MMP Director. I believe he is still in Maine.
