www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Apocalypticism

Could anyone here discuss the Eastern Orthodox concept of Apocalypse and how it differs from the Roman Catholic understanding?

Thanks!

I've been waiting to see what the response would be. Since there isn't any, I'll bite first.

By Apocalypse, are you speaking of the book of Revelation? Or are you asking about more generally about the Second Coming and the "rapture?"

Hi Paul:

I am glad you responded. I thought this would be a hot topic but it appears not. I mean an Orthodox understanding of "the last times", not necessarily the Book of Revelations or rapture.

Thanks

According to Eastern theology we are living in the "latter days"...they began after the Resurrection.
This is the "quick" answer. There are other biblical references but they are more mystically oriented than definitive.

The Western Church seems to have more known "apparitions" or "revelations" on the subject (to my knowledge) but they are allegory and "shadowy." It's a subject which is interesting for speculation; however we seem to have our hands full following Christ's teaching day to day.

Fr Deacon Paul

Why start off with *differences* between Catholics and Orthodox on eschatology? Why not ask what is in common first?

Foremost in common is a moderate or normative preterism, the view that Jesus' eschatological prophecies (Matthew 24:1-25:46; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 17:20-37 & 21:5-36; and most of the Apocalypse of St John) were fulfilled in the first generation with the destruction of Jerusalem, which decisively manifested Jesus' Godhead and brought the former age to a violent end. The Millennium is a symbol of Christ's triumph through the Church over the whole world, in which Constantine the Great was instrumental. Constantine even minted coins showing himself as the mighty angel of Apoc 20:2 Preterist archive.org [preteristarchive.com] binding the devil with a great chain.

Both likewise confess that we still expect Christ to come to judge the living and the dead at the end of this present Christian age; that this universal judgement will be preceded by a massive apostasy led by a personal Antichrist; and that prior to both these events there will be a triumph and flourishing of the Church not only in the Roman Oikoumene, but globally as we understand the world today.

As far as differences go, Catholics would emphasize that by God's election, Rome is the New Jerusalem, the earthly center of the universal Church of Christ. Orthodox would concur on this as well, but assign the leading role either to Constantinople as the New Rome, or to Moscow as the Third Rome. (It will take the greatest of all ecumenical councils to straighten this out, but I am confident it will happen.)

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Rev 21:1-2

The new Jerusalem is not of this present earth, but is the renewed creation after the Second Coming.

Deacon Paul, your comment reflects a purely futurist view of the New Jerusalem. That there will be a future perfect realization of what Jerusalem once signified does not mean that the New Jerusalem does not already exist on earth. Saying that the New Jerusalem is nowhere on earth now would mean either that the universal Church has no earthly center, or that there is no visible universal Church.

As a Catholic, I say that God has elected Rome as the permanent earthly center of the universal Church until the end of this present age.

Consider this passage of Scripture:

"But Jesus answered and said to them (the twelve apostles), "Amen I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what I have done to the fig tree, but even if you shall say to this mountain (Zion) 'Arise, and hurl thyself into the sea,' (the Mediterranean) it shall be done." (Matthew 21:21, Confraternity Version)

As I see it, the Lord here prophesied that the apostles would by their spiritual authority translate the capital of the universal theocracy from Jerusalem to Rome. This fits both the original historical context and the later facts of Church history.

The New Jerusalem will be perfected in the age to come, but not first appear then.

Gabriel I would your statement further, the New Jerusalem is not only centered in one city or among one people but is truly Catholic, among all people, lacking in nothing but in its members orthopraxis. Every diocese and eparchy is capable of living out the New Jerusalem, in as much as its members follow the teachings of Christ with their bishop as their chief shepherd. As to Rome, I don't agree that God has chosen any city as His singular earthly dwelling - Rome does have a pre-eminent place as far as it houses the person of the Pope, the successor of Peter and Chief Shepherd of the Churches Shepherds.

Gabriel and Michael,

There is truth to what you say about the earth after the Resurrection, as it gives is a taste of the "New Jerusalem." But I believe that our mortal minds can't even conceive of the awesomeness of "our rooms in God's mansion." I believe though that your explanation describes more "the Kingdom of God" which is always present....its just a matter of us realizing it and doing our best to live in it.

I am (Eastern) Catholic, but I don't believe that Rome is the "New Jerusalem." There resides the most recognized of the Patriarchs and the head of all Catholic apostolic successors, but the Body of Christ (the Church) still existed even when Avignon was the seat of the Popes. Too much emphasis on the temporal seat of the Church erodes The Faith and tends to reduce it to a "religion."

IMHO,
Fr Deacon Paul