Replies

That’s an entirely different paragraph, and not the one I am taking issue with. This is the problematic one:

“Consider a similar passage from the Book of Revelation (Chapter 18) warning the faithful about “Babylon.” (By 90 AD Babylon was actually long gone. Thus “Babylon” here is a symbol for the world and its tendency to fall into corruption.) John was saying that the “Great City” (Jerusalem – the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified – Rev 11:8) had become Babylon. And he develops this theme in Revelation 18. Sadly, by 70 AD, having been given 40 years to repent, Jerusalem was sacked, burned, and utterly destroyed just as this prophecy had warned.”

He says “as this prophecy had warned”. Well, what prophecy? He only refers to two passages from the Bible in this paragraph (Rev. Chapter 18, and Rev. 11:8), so the prophecy he means is one of those, and because he refers to a warning, it surely is Rev 18, as that contains this warning:

“4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.”

When this was written, Jerusalem had already been destroyed in 70 AD. So this prophecy is not equivalent to the Olivet discourse, it must refer to future events.

I see what you're saying there. You're correct: by, say, ~90 AD, by the time Revelation was written, not only was the literal "Babylon" long gone, but Jerusalem was gone, gone, gone as well.

But if you want to reference prophecies made ~40 years before, as Msgr. Pope says, you'd have to look to the Gospels.

That paragraph leaves it unclear which set of prophecies he's talking about. He says "Revelation" but he's --- it seems to me --- referring to the Gospels.