The Rapture?

OSV.com ^ | 04-29-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

The Rapture?

Q. Many of our Protestant brethren say that, before Jesus comes, there will be a rapture wherein all the faithful will be taken up, I guess, to meet Him in the sky. When I tell them that the Bible says we will “see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven” (Mt 24:30) and “he will send his angels ... and they will gather his elect from the four winds” (Mt 24:31), and then ask them who will be left to “gather” if everyone has previously been “raptured,” they say it will be the Jews. What is the Church’s teaching on this? Will there even be such a thing as the rapture? I’m confused! Any light you can shed on the subject will be greatly appreciated!

Rich Willette, Springfield, Vt.

A. The notion of rapture (a Latin word that means to be snatched away) is a very novel concept among certain (not all) evangelicals. It is a notion less than 150 years old and finds no real support in the biblical text as you point out. Fundamentally, the theory asserts that before the final tribulations of the last times, faithful Christians will be snatched away. Rapture theorists disagree about the exact moment of the snatching. Some say it will be pre-tribulation, others midway through the tribulations, and some even say post-tribulation.

The root text for evangelicals who hold rapture theory is a text from the First Letter to the Thessalonians: “Indeed. we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore, console one another with these words” (4:15-18).

The context is the second coming of Christ. There are not two second comings taught in Scripture, but rapture theory posits two — the one described in First Thessalonians and another one, some 1,000 years later. Note, too, that in First Thessalonians there is no mention of some people being left behind. There is no mention of a 1,000-year reign. Nor does St. Paul indicate that what he is describing here is a different coming of Christ, distinct from other texts in the Gospel wherein Christ describes His own second coming.

Thus we are left with a text that simply does not support what rapture theorists say. They further strive to unnaturally stitch this account with other texts in the Book of Revelation. The result is a highly debatable account of the last days that even rapture theorists hotly debate in terms of the details. The whole enterprise amounts to an attempt to shoehorn biblical passages into rapture theory that more clearly call it into question. To say the “elect” are merely the Jews is speculative at best and fanciful and contrived at worst.

As for Catholic teaching on these matters, the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes it as follows: “Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers [see Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12]. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ 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 religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. [see 2 Thes 2:4-12; 1 Thes 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; 1 Jn 2:18-22]” (No. 675).

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes, you are correct. Angels=stars is the primary Biblical meaning.

I was just exploring the imagery from a poetic/metaphorical point of view Many prophetic images, especially apocalyptic ones, are multivalent.

On primary meaning, you got it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Private devotion and private revelations are not doctrine. Another distinction you have been told but have not grasped.

For obvious, common-sense reasons, I'd never recommend going to an anti-Catholic polemicist, whether Protestant or Sedevacantist, for accurate information about the Catholic Church.

[verga]

Dear verga, that is exactly the kind of global generalization I would urge us all to avoid.

Name a single one of the usual suspects that I did not give an accurate description of. How many times has each of us told them some variation of "Catholics don't adore/worship/ idolize the blessed Mother?" And yet they continue to repeat that same lie over and over. Some of them even bring it into a conversation in which it has no bearing or application. This thread being a perfect example.

[ealgeone]

Private devotion and private revelations are not doctrine. Another distinction you have been told but have not grasped.

These are more than just private revelations....something catholics seem to try and downplay.

At Fatima, Pope John Paul II said on May 13: "the Message of Fatima is more relevant and more urgent" than when Our Lady first appeared. The message is an anguished appeal of Our Heavenly Mother, Who sees us in great danger and Who comes to offer Her help and advice. Her message is also a prophecy, a clear indication of what was about to transpire in the 20th Century, and what is still going to happen infallibly in the near future, depending on our response to Her requests.

The Catholic Church has endorsed the Fatima Message since 1930. Five successive Popes have publicly indicated their approval of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima and Her message. Two Popes went to Fatima on Pilgrimage. Pope John Paul II went there twice, once on May 13, 1982 and again on May 13, 1991.

http://www.fatima.org/crusader/cr49/cr49ap2.asp

For obvious, common-sense reasons, I'd never recommend going to an anti-Catholic polemicist, whether Protestant or Sedevacantist, for accurate information about the Catholic Church.

You may note that all but one of my references was either from the Word itself or a catholic source. And the information from qotquestions.org could just as easily be pulled from any catholic website.

[Boogieman]

“Compare Christ’s resurrection to the resurrection in Revelation 20. Which one is first?”

Lazarus was resurrected even before Christ, so if we were to follow your logic, Lazarus would be the first resurrection, Christ would be the second, and the rest of us would be completely out of luck, since there are only two resurrections spoken of in Revelation or the rest of the New Testament.

If you accept Revelation’s description at face value instead of trying to change it to apply it to a past event that makes no logical sense, then everything falls into place.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your unbalanced view is what undermines your commentary. For instance, "These are more than just private revelations....something catholics seem to try and downplay."

Actually they are, precisely, private revelations, and they are, for that reason, and by definition, not sources of doctrine.

I don't mind when you tell me what you believe. I mind when you tell me what *I* believe.

Especially when you've got it wrong.

I, personally, think the Fatima phenomenon was a genuine visit by Blessed Mary. However, I could say "I do not believe that at all, I think it's a mass delusion" and still be a good Catholic in every sense of the word. It is not doctrine.

I'm not going to go round and round with you on this, because we've done it before, and it becomes a mere waste of time and energy.

My bottom line to you is: go on ahead and tell us what you believe.

But don't tell me what *I* believe. I'm the one and only expert on that.

Thank you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not going to name a select group of "usual suspects" because that would both insult them and oblige me to ping them into the discussion. Double-plus-ungood.

....and that has little bearing on my objection. You didn't initially indict "usual subjects," you indicted "100% of the anti-Catholics and the majority of non-Catholics that we encounter" (#220)..

It's that kind of generalization that I would urge us to avoid.

[Seven_0]

Lazarus was not the first, there were a few in the Old Testament. The point I make is that there is a physical resurrection of Christ and all who are in Christ are part of his resurrection.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

As for the second resurrection, those who are not hurt of the second death will not need it and those who go to the second death will not get a second resurrection. The second resurrection is a puzzle. Perhaps it happened already to Christ. When we say that Christ died in our place, we are not talking of physical death.

[ealgeone]

But don't tell me what *I* believe. I'm the one and only expert on that.

I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm telling you what catholics have said about this topic.

And for something catholics don't claim as doctrine they sure do devote a lot of time and energy defending and promoting it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

And for something neither you nor the Catholic Church claim as doctrine, you sure do devote a lot of time and energy to both inflating and denying it.

Why don't you just affirmatively tell us about your church? There must be many valuable and mutually edifying things you could share. Now that would interest me.

[editor-surveyor]

.
As long as you do not get fooled into accepting the Beast’s buying and selling license, you are correct; it doesn’t have to affect your salvation.

But what it could affect is your ability to be ready and be taken to the place in the desert where we will be protected. And that could set you up for some tough times during the Trib.

1John Ch 1 best tells what your salvation depends on.
.

[ealgeone]

And for something neither you nor the Catholic Church claim as doctrine, you sure do devote a lot of time and energy to both inflating and denying it.

If the RCC has not refuted these apparitions, and I don't believe they have, they're advocating an acceptance of these as doctrine.

It seems catholics want to have it both ways with Fatima and the other apparitions. They like to hold these up for teaching when it is favorable; yet when the full light is shown on their message and it is seen how it contradicts the Word, the catholic wants to claim "private revelation."

It would seem the RCC needs to either publicly deny or accept these apparitions. It will remove the ambiguity of these apparitions.

Time is spent refuting the false claims of Fatima and the other apparitions to keep the unsuspecting from falling into error.

Why don't you just affirmatively tell us about your church? There must be many valuable and mutually edifying thi

I'm a follower of Christ. I'm a member of the ekklesia.

[tjd1454]

The first people we know of that had been told there had already been a secret rapture were the Thessalonians.

Paul explained to them that there had to be a moral/spiritual “falling away” first, and the man of sin must also first be revealed, before anyone would be raptured.

Good point. The "secret rapture" was a false teaching that Paul corrected in 2 Thessalonians.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So tell me about your ekklesia. The one you gather and worship with.

[SkyDancer]

I was discussing this with my dad and granddad. Both said that back in the 70’s there was this big deal about the Rapture and how everyone was running around saying it’s going to happen real soon; a guy by the name of Hal Lindsey(sp) was some sort of guru on it. And of course nothing happened. Now it’s the same thing all over again, Rapture Rapture, etc and that term isn’t even used in the Bible.

[ealgeone]

What do you want to know?

However, I will not tell you if I'm a member of one denomination or another.

I attend a church that is predicated upon the teachings of Christ.

The Bible is the source of truth. We don't use other books like the Mormons (Book of Mormon)do.

I personally lead a class on Sundays where we study the Word. Right now we're doing a survey of the Old Testament based on my notes from the Survey of the OT class I just completed.

I am currently enrolled in seminary level classes to study the Greek. I've completed the first two and have two more to go. I will note that most seminaries require only two classes in Greek.

I plan to take two Hebrew classes when I'm finished with the Greek. To be honest, the Hebrew has been harder to learn than the Greek. Getting use to the Hebrew alphabet is a challenge!

[free_life]

Matt 24:29 says “gathers his elect”

In verses 42, 43 and 44 it says stay awake and be ready for the coming of the Lord

So no this is not about the unrighteous being taken in judgement as you claim. Matt 24 and 1 Thess 4 are talking the one only return of the Lord Jesus and the gathering of his elect as he comes to earth starting his millennial rule on earth.

[GBA]

“Stars” usually represent angels. The 1/3 in this case are those that chose to follow Satan in his rebellion.

This was my initial belief as well and much of what I've read tends to agree.

My truth is "I don't know", so I'm open to other possibilities, too.

The protests of the Protestant against the sins of Rome, that somehow justifies our combat and put us on this rocky path to our times' sliced and diced Christianity, has made the interpretation I offered a recurring thought of late.

But, again, I don't know. I truly don't and that should be obvious.

Scripture, especially Revelation/Apocalypse material, often seems to have meaning within metaphor within meaning, seemingly to confuse the proud, the distracted, the sleeping and the dead.

Honestly? It looks like humanity in our times has been smote about the head and shoulders with a Romans 11:8 stick and we've never recovered.

Theses days there are so many different translations of the Bible, along with the many different branches of the Protestant branch off of the Catholic branch off of the...wait a minute, I lost count of the branches...anyway, what I was trying to say is that it's confusing and that often more than one meaning of meaning seems to fit.

Also, as society and technology advances and our perception of what is just beyond what we currently know also advances, our minds continually open to things and to an understanding that were unknown 50 years ago and undreamed of 100, 200 or more years ago.

When thinking about how rapidly the world changed after WWII, consider how some "break though" event or new technology or whatever that's just up ahead of us might open our awareness in ways that simply cannot be conceived of here in this now on our story's timeline, and that then we'll "see" meaning and have understanding redefined in ways our fathers and grandfathers could not have imagined.

Perhaps one (or more) of the prophecies still left to be fulfilled will be the event that razes our mistakes while raising our understanding.

In the meantime, I don't like my ignorance, but I am stuck where I am looking for clues until His Holy Spirit lights my way and He sends Wisdom to help me "see".

[verga]

You didn't initially indict "usual subjects," you indicted "100% of the anti-Catholics

They are the usual suspexcts.

[verga]

If the RCC has not refuted these apparitions, and I don't believe they have, they're advocating an acceptance of these as doctrine.

According to your logic, every single non-Catholic or non-Orthodox christian religion are advocating an acceptance of abortion as doctrine. Since non of them have a central authority refuting this atrocity.

While I hope that it is not true, that is the result of taking your position to it's extreme logical end.