Preterism can't be the full implications of the Apocalypse


Preterism is entirely valid in its own right, as I suppose futurism might even be, as could mere idealism. but preterism is not as important as spiritual historicism.

For example, the implications for major Salvation history of the fact that the war in the fall of Jerusalem was “FIVE months” is not nearly as important as “the Protestant rebelllion dealt a deadly blow to Christian unity, plunging entire large communities into the loss of FIVE sacraments and unleashing divsion and chaos that clearly served as the beginning of undoing the Christian faith altogether in the civs that intially had it.”

Hence, the significance of Protestantism has far greater weight of meaning in Salvation history than that Jerusalem fell in five months. If it had been 23 months, would that alter the course of Salvatoin history? So i shouldn’t say that the details of the destruction of the temple are utterly useless. But I should say that they are far less significant than the greater spiritual ages of the Church, precisely which are tied to ecclesiology, which is one of the central questions of PUBLIC revelation and dogma.

Dogma doesn’t state: “Jerusalem fell in five months” nor would I see any reason that the Church would need to declare such a dogma, because, as a piece of temporal data, it’s practically useless. On the other hand, the Chuch defines, “God gives sufficient grace to all*** schismatics, heretics, infidels, Jews, and pagans***.” She DOGMATICALLY defines matters of ecclesiology. No where does Jesus say in the Gospels that Jerusalem would fall in five months, but He implies ecclesiology when, in His Eucharistic Prayer, in John 17, he prays that “they may be one.”

To the best of my knowledge, the CCC no where mentions that Jerusalem fell in five months, but it mentions ***“Wounds to unity, schism, heresy, scandal”***, which are also in Scripture. In the normal Mass prayers, I have never heard the phrase, “and in five months, O Lord, you allowed the Romans to destroy the Temple”, but in EVERY SINGLE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER, whether watered down or not but modern lectionaries, there is either an EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT reference to a prayer that CHRISTIAN UNITY increase.

So, here’s what I’m saying. The TEMPORAL details of the Early Church may have had SOME MINOR significance for the Early Christians, but, in the grander scheme of things, they are NOT that important. Jerusalem FELL, and the NT age was born. Yes, THAT is monumental. But knowing TEMPORAL specifics of this? Is that really all that important? If you are orthodox, you cannot say these minor TEMPORAL details have the same implication toward the meaning of human history as ECCLESIOLOGY. Ecclesiology is of far more sweeping and has far more mega implications for the salvation of the world.

Therefore, a person who truly understands the Gospel in its core essence would never be content with preterism. A person with true wisdom in this area knows that there must be more, FAR more to this book, than that.


It seems to me that most prophecies, biblical or the prophecies of marian apparitions, are expressed in a way that sounds apocalyptic but turn out to refer to things that happen in the normal course of history in the relatively near future.



I always wonder when I read your posts if you could just tell us your thoughts rather than post in apologetics.

I mean, clearly support your position, and present it.

You are so intelligent and I really think others should get a better / clearer understanding of where you are coming from. I fear many that could learn from your thread will dismiss it, because they dont ponder these things.



Hi, Hellisreal,

thank you for responding. I agree, I probably shouldn’t be so argumentative. I should just rather present what i’m to present. For now, a long discourse on how I view the Trumpets is on my website. Here is the link.

The Seal and the Mark, and Everything in Between

But it needs to be condensed, and is redundant in many places.

Essentially, let me summarize it, so that a person has the basic jist:

The stages of the saint in the “Way”, are three, the

I. Purgative
II. Illuminative
III. Unitive

Just as Revelation has, in its main chronology, three main parts:

I. The Seals
II. The Trumpets
III. The Vials

I correlate the two, so that the spiritual ages of the saint are a type of the spiritually historical path the Church walks.

hence, the Trumpets, from which the “Sealed” ones are protected, are the Illuminative way, so that, as the Church develops her doctrine, that is, as she illumines the Gentiles, only faithful Catholics can be protected in the “forehead”, that is, in their intellect, from being “harmed” by impure, or false teaching.

Then, the trumpets are not literal physical calamities but rather great spiritual attacks on the Church’s doctrinal development, that eventually acquire an ever greater darkness, culminating with the total antithesis of the Seal, that is, the MARK (of the beast) representing a person who is utterly in darkness, who consider none of the light of God’s truth.

The intermediate trumpets then signify “gray areas”, in as much as venial sin is “gray”, as opposed to mortal sin, which utterly “black”, in as much as, in the beginning, persons only attempt to “harm” the Two Witnesses (Scripture and Tradition), but later they are “murdered” by the “beast” (the minor apostasy).

Thank you again, Hellisreal. I will try to be more positive in the future.


Thanks for posting that! I know its people like you that have prayerfully examined the scriptures, seeking for the truth with such zeal that open doors to many others no matter where they are at in their journey.


You give us much to think about.

God bless your efforts


Thank you for your kind words, Hellisreal. I am humbled and grateful that you would find my efforts enriching.

I pray God bless you as well!




I read the “seals and the marks” on your website earlier. I’ll have to read about the way of the saints to get a better picture. I was wondering if you could say a few words about the Vials or point me to the appropriate web article? I assume you are refering to the Vials/Bowls that start in chapter 16.

Also, I was trying to think of a good system to exchange ideas, as I’m interested in better understanding your point of view, while also wanting to express my discoveries. Are you wanting to focus the discussion more on the above topic? Or debate preterism vs. spiritual historism? or both?

Ryan :slight_smile:


No, let’s open up the discussion, so it stays in one place. I’m not against preterism. I just think spiritual historicism is deeper and more meaningful. But let’s not talk past one another. Let’s share the goodness of both levels. Make it productive and enriching, rahter than a debate.

Cheers! :slight_smile:


Do you know which interpretation this is? Is it preterist? I tend to think that prophecies usually refer to something to happen in the near future but also that they point to the end times, in the sense that God’s Kingdom is always near and always coming, and that these battles against evil through history all sort of fold up across time to be united with the final battle between good and evil before the Judgement.


Except for perhaps anti-supernatural cranks, I know of very few people who are pure preterists. Most serious Catholic readers of Scripture acknowledge a mixture of the main approaches to NT apocalyptic.


I’ve come to agree with the view that the bulk of Revelation/the Apocolypse is about the destruction of the Temple (preterist), but at the same time being a prophecy of a still future final fulfillment. I believe this to be a traditional Catholic way of looking at it. At the same time I’m interested hearing the full spectrum of interpretations, including the far out stuff by Jack Van Impy.

Part of the deeper meaning I see in the Apocolypse is the Battle strategies of Christ, Satan, and the Church. Which are the same strategies used to this day, surrounding different circumstances. A recent discovery of mine, that has me fascinated, is the idea that the visions in the Apocolype aren’t a chronological event, but that each vision is the same event seen from different angles.

The Seals are seen from the perspective of the Lion/Lamb, who opens them. (ever notice that the seventh seal contains all seven trumpets?) The Trumpets are seen from the perspective of the Sanhedrin, of the Temple. (this is probably why the coming of Christ in the last trumpet, something most of us are looking forward to, is considered a woe) Finally, the Bowls are seen from the perspective of the Church.

I’d like to post more when I have more time.

Ryan :slight_smile:


Which part of revelation refers to the destruction of the temple?


Past events230

(Rev 4:1- 11:19) Is the initial vision describing the events surrounding 70 A.D.

Chapter 12 is about Mary/Church, Jesus, and Satan.

(Rev 13:1 - 20:2) is a recapitualation of the initial vision, the strategies and events of 70 A.D.

Keep in mind the above event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment.

Also, (20:7-21:4) are future events surrounding the final eschaton, (20:2-6) is the current millenium.


I would like to leave a first thought:

Augustinian theology likens the age of the Church as best represented by the field with wheat and tares. I think this is a mistake, one of the greatest that has hindered a deeper understanding of salvation history.

The primary imagery for all of Salvation History is probably not this but rather the days of Creation and heads of beast. That is, the salvation history, including the Church age, follows the path of the alternation from darkness to light. IOW, salvation history, from beginning to end, consists of eight epocs, or “days”, each day beginning with a general “evening” [darkness, sin], followed by a general “morning” [light, redemption].

This is in fact how it goes if one take a cursory analysis, as I provided. From that, I conclude that salvaiton history is predetermined according the fallen nature that is constantly like the heads of the beast. In the beginning, the beast rears it’s first head, then that is slain, then another one rises, then that one is slain, etc.

The symbolism of seven is that when the seventh head is slain, the fullness of Redemption arrives WITHIN human history, this being equivalent to thej seventh day sabbath. It represents a veritable rest for the People of God from the sin of history. Not, of course, in an absolute sense, but in a general sense, in much a similar way in which idolatry was mostly weeded out after the Jews returned from the exile, that is, until Antiochus.

The eighth day is then the ultimate sabbath: the sun sets after the seventh day, which brings the beast back to its first head (hence, the beast was and is not and will be again). But since, the seventh redemptive action represented the fullest possible extent of the Redemption of humanity (the fullness of the Gentiles), the slaying of the beast in the eighth stage can only be done through the actual ending of the world, that being the dawn of the New Creatoin, the ultimate sabbath.

Also, the succession of these eight darknesses is not arbitrary. They follow an order or structure that is inevitable. As I indicated, these darknesses are ordered as follows:

the first Two Darknesses, in the age of the Patriarchs, are ordered according to the two primary lies of iniquity, anti-Baptism (Pre-Flood Corruption) and anti-Marriage (Tower of Babel, the exalatation of the creation as an end in and of itself, rather than as a means to an end.)

The remaining SIx darknesses are divided as Three and Three, and each Three according to the darknesses of the Way of the Saint (dark night of senses, dark night of soul, martyrdom), the first Three for the Prefiguring Covenant, the second Three for the New Covenant, and these forming precisely the foundation for how the Jews convert in the end: the New LITERALLLY fulflls the Old in the bigger spiritual picture.

I will post more on how i view the gradual setting of the sun in the NT illuminative way as also following an ordered digression towards the intermediate apostasy, when I discuss Ecclesiology in the Apocalypse.


Please- Spauline-

Very interested in your thoughts on the apostacy- and all its dimentions-

If you could go step by step- great and large apostacy- when/ ect.


This factor is very interesting yes?


Let me go through the days in a more systematic fashion.

I will base them from the reference of St. John’s writing:

Just as Augustine and Methodius say, “five are the ages of the Old Law”, so also, in Apoc 17:9-11, it says,

Five have fallen:

I. The Fall and Pre-Flood Wickedness / The Flood

II. Tower of Babel / Language Confounding and Call of Abraham

(note, the above two are the preeminent ages, each following successively the two primary lies of the serpent in the garden, these being summarized as the diabolical plagiarization of the two sacraments left in heresy, Baptism and Marriage, even as the Lamb has seven horns (Sacraments), and the false prophet has two horns, like a Lamb (the evil twisting of the two remnant sacraments remaining with heretics, making the lie the ultimate heresy)).

the remaining three ages of the Old Law then follow the inevitable path of the “Way”, seeing as the Jews are to journey through a great Revelatory covenant in as much as the Catholic journeys individually with God in the NT cov.

III. Egyptian Enslavement (the OT purgative phase) / Exodus and OT Kingdom (OT illumnative phase with the Prophets)

IV. The Intermediate Jewish Apostasy (OT dark night of the soul) / The Exile and OT Restoration (the OT unitive phase, the Jews will becomes one with God, more or less, seeing as idolatry is finally mostly uprooted in the century of peace they enjoy before the final ordeal)

V. OT Antichrist Antiochus, Final Jewish Apostasy (OT martyrdom) / The First Coming of Christ (the OT version of the saint who crosses the threshold of death into the Next Age, heaven)

This completes the OT. There eight total stages, hence, three remain for the NT, which also follow the way of the saint, like the OT ages for the Jews:

the Apoc 17 goes on to state:

One is:

VI. Pagan Rome (the purgation) / Rise of Catholic Christendom (the illuminative phase, where the Church illumines humanity through her doctrinal development)

Again, Apoc 17:

And the other has not yet come, and when he does, he must continue a short space:

VII. The Minor Apostasy (the dark night of the soul, which is NOW) / The Minor Chastisement and Catholic Restoration and Age of Peace (the NT **unitive phase, **where the will of the Gentiles and the Church becomes one with will of God, there is peace, a veritable seventh day sabbath, but it is imperfect, for a final darkness has yet to come, the eighth…)

Apoc 17:

And the beast which was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition:

VIII. The NT Antichrist and Great Apostasy (NT martyrdom) / The Second Coming of Christ, New Creation (the NT Next Age, Heaven, the New Heavens and New Earth; Human history, like the saint, crosses the threshold into the world that will never end.)

will post more later, especially to elaborate on why the idea of TWO NT Apostasies fits better with Scriptural and Traditional data than the pessimistic, amillennial, ONE apostasy scenario that has been the model since Augustine.




There was an interesting article I read by Jimmy Akin. It’s called the The Structure of Revelation. In the article he points out some interesting patterns…

Introduction 1:1-8

  1. Seven Letters 1:9-3:22
  2. Seven Seals 4:1-8:1
  3. Seven Trumpets 8:2-11:19
  4. Seven Signs 12:1-14:20
  5. Seven Bowls 15:1-16:21
  6. The Whore of Babylon 17:1-19:10
  7. Seven Sights 19:11-21:8
  8. The Bride of Christ 21:9-22:11
    Conclusion 22:12-21

I thought the article was well thought out and provided a very balanced outline for reading the apocalypse.

There was also some interesting 4/3 and 6/7 splits within the pattern.

Myself, I tend to think that preterism will have its counterpart in futurism, with various historical epochs overarcing the two views, meshing them into one coherent whole.


thank you, Ex Nihilo, for sharing. I think I saw this before. The beauty of Revelation is, it is so deep and profound, with overlaps of immense degree, that I think it can truly be agreed with, was it St. Jerome, who said,

“there are as many mysteries as there are words.”

:slight_smile: :thumbsup:


Dear Hell is real,

I would like to comment further on the implications of a two apostasy scenario versus the long assumed one-apostasy scenario of Augustinianism.

The two-apostasy scenario answers so many more theological questions and gels with far more Scriptural and Traditional data than does the pessimistic one apostasy scenario. I believe that Father Groschel and Alice Von Hildebrandt espouse this traditional view of the Church quite staunchly, and I would like to critique it on several grounds.

To summarize, I have heard that Groschel’s opinion is that what now remains for Church history is for the gray areas to clear out, so that the world will consist of basically two types of people: devout Catholics and total apostates (atheistic materialists or relativistic materialists). But, evidently, Groshcel does not anticipate that weeding out of the gray will ever restore the faith. Rather, eventually, the darkness will overcome, the Antichrist will come, and the world will end.

I have serious problems with this.

Let’s start with problem number one: the Jews were brought out of bondage, into a kingdom, they kicked and screamed while they were brought out, they kicked and screamed while they were in the kingdom, and eventually they kicked and screamed their way out of faithfulness. THEN, they got their ***es whipped, and THEN they came back. They were actually REVERTED from their apostasy!! Only in their third trial was that it.

Now let’s look at Church history. Same thing has happened so far: the Gentiles kicked and screamed while they were brought out of paganism into Catholicism (Roman persecutions, Dark Ages). They kicked and screamed while they were IN Catholic Christendom (heresies, Inquisition, Crusades, wars, a big mess). And beginning with Protestantism, they have gradually kicked and screamed their way out of the NT Covenant altogether. Yeah, the Church is doing well in newer places like Africa and some parts of Asia, but let’s face it: the European Civs and their derivatives, the Civs that used to be traditionally Christian, are in a veritable APOSTASY. For most of them, religion and morality is not even on the radar map. They stand in the same position the Jews were in prior to the exile.

Now, here is precisely where I cannot understand Groshcel and Von Hildebrandt: you mean to tell me that God cannot do the same thing with the Gentiles that He did with the Jews? That, in the end, the gray will be weeded out, but only to leave a minority of faithful, and that WHEN the *** whipping finally comes, that they will NOT repent as the Jews did when Babylon swept down and brought all hell with it? I find that not only hard hearted and pessimistic, I find it stupid!

I would like to ask Groshcel this: was the reversion of the Jews to the OT Cov after the exile merely “by free will chance”, or did God also PREDESTINE it? Was it merely an accident that when the **** hit the fan, the Jews finally woke up, merely by their free will, or did God also PLAN it that way?

For that matter, is there an intrinsic difference between the human nature of the Jew and Gentile? Does the Jew have an altogether different relationship to God, intrinsically of his intellect and will, that is strikingly different from that of the Gentile?

The Augustinian will retort YES: for they have a different place in human history. In part yes. But in fact, seeing as intrinsically the Jew in his intellect and will is no different in terms of susceptibility to temptation and to be converted by grace than the Gentile, does this not in fact lend great support to the notion that, human nature being what it is, HISTORY TENDS TO REPEAT ITSELF, and that in fact, that the history of the Church should follow the very same spiritual structure of the Jewish history is highly probable.

… continued below…


…continued from above…

So then, yes, there is a distinction between the Jew and Gentile eschatologically, in the sense that , some who are first will be last, and some who are last will be first. Yes, the TIMING and DEGREE of their acceptance of God’s Truth is different: the Jews are FIRST to receive ANY Revelation from God, but they are the LAST to receive it in FULL, whereas the Gentiles are the LAST to receive ANY Revelation from God, but are the FIRST to receive it in full. But beyond, this it appears that the Jew and Gentile are similar in terms of tendency both to sin as well as conversion. Hence, it is likely that, “human nature being what it is”, the spiritual history shall repeat.

With that in mind, how is it that the Gentiles cannot be converted from an intermediate apostasy, seeing as God did so wonderfully with his first son?

I will write more later.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit