A reader writes:
I am a Protestant who has recently been awakening to a newfound appreciation for the Catholic Church and her teaching.
For four or five years now my views have been solidly of the "full preterist" persuasion (heretical – yes, I know). Lately I’ve distanced myself somewhat from these views. Here’s where I am now: I still cannot read the Biblical passages which explicitly refer to the return of the Lord as referring to a yet future event. The Olivet Discourse, and much (though I would not say all) of the Apocalypse seem to me to be about events that were quickly closing in on the Apostolic church. That said, I believe that we are definitely living "between the times" in that the kingdom of God is a present but mysterious reality which has yet to reach its fullness, and I believe that Christ is the bringer of this fullness. I also believe that everyone (past/present/future) has been and/or will be judged according to there deeds, and that Christ is the bringer of this judgment.
So, now to the question(s). What does it mean to confess with the Catholic Church that Christ will return? Must it mean that I picture Him coming bodily on a cloud and doing certain things (I think a lot of Protestants have Him throwing fireballs at people)? Or rather, in confessing this could I be confessing Him to be the future bringer of the fullness of the kingdom and judgment, but maintain an element of mystery as to how this will actually look (perhaps it will be bodily and on a cloud but like I said, I read no Biblical passages which make me think it MUST be this way). What is the dogma of the Church on the meaning of "He will come again?" I ask this question humbly and honestly because if my faith were to continue along the path it seems now to be on I would not want to be dishonest or less than genuine in anything that I confess (I mean, if you have to qualify the hell out of something can you really say you believe it?)
I want to thank the reader for his openness to Catholic thought and for his honesty and conscientiousness about wanting to make a sincere profession of faith and not deprive doctrines of their meaning via reinterpretation.
For those who may not be aware, "full preterism"–sometimes also referred to as "pantelism" (by its critics)–is, so I understand, the position that all biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, including the Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead. Obviously, these would have had to have been fulfilled in ways that differ markedly from the way Christians have historically understood them. This position, being contrary to the Creed’s confession of both a future Second Coming and a future resurrection, is materially heretical. Consequently, I’m glad to hear that the reader has begun distancing himself from it.
Regarding passages like the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25) that deal with the Second Coming, I would urge the reader to consider this possibility: If you look at the passage in question, much of the material does indeed refer to events that occurred in the early Church and, to my mind, in the first century. This includes some of the passages speaking of a coming of Christ, but not to all of them. There is a distinction to be made between the various ways that Christ "comes" to his people (in blessing or in judgment; just as Scripture speaks of God "coming" to his people in these ways) and the final, definitive Second Coming.
The Olivet Discourse begins with Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple and then the disciples ask him two things: (1) When will this happen? (2) What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?
What follows is a discourse in which Matthew organizes the prophetic teachings of Christ, including drawing together material that is found at various places in Luke. It seems to me that, in reflecting on this material, there is a marked difference between the material in chapter 24 and that in chapter 25.
The chapter 24 material is much more concrete and specific, whereas the material in chapter 25 is expressly parabolic, involving the parable of the ten virgins, the parable of the talents, and the parable of the sheep and the goats.
I would hypothesize that the material in chapter 24 answers the disciples first question–"When will these things (the destruction of the temple) be?"–and the material in chapter 25 deals with the Second Coming, which is by its nature an event that cannot be described in the kind of concrete terms that we find in chapter 24. It’s too far outside the realm of human experience, making it more suited to parabolic treatment.
Whether the reader finds this interpretation convincing is not essential, though. The Church does not mandate a particular interpretation of these texts. What it does insist on is that there is a future Second Coming that will involve a radical rupture in the present world order and usher in a new and eternal state.
A significant text which seems to bear on this future coming (as opposed to other, non-definitive "comings," such as a coming in judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70) is found in Acts 1:
6: So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7: He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.
8:
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and
you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria
and to the end of the earth."
9: And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
10: And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
11:
and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This
Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way
as you saw him go into heaven."
This seems to indicate that Christ’s future, definitive coming will in one respect be an inverse of the Ascension. That is, just as Christ manifestly and bodily ascended into heaven, at his final and definitive coming he will manifestly and bodily descend from heaven. It is this manifest bodily descent that seems to mark the Second Coming in distinction from all other conceivable comings of Christ (e.g., coming in a vision, visiting blessing or judgment on a people without bodily descending from heaven, coming in the Eucharist in bodily but not manifest manner).
The fact that Christ will be reunited with us in a manifest and bodily fashion at the Second Coming does not mean that the event must be understood reductionistically, as it is sometimes understood in Fundamentalist circles, as if Jesus will return to the earth like an astronaut returning from space (but without the space capsule). The event will represent such a massive rupture with the present world order such that the laws of space and time as we presently understand them are likely to no longer apply.
For example, Scripture speaks of the day of judgment in ways that strongly suggest that the current rules of space and time will not apply. It is hard to imagine, for example, that Jesus will actually judge billions of people in a 24 hour period, reviewing their smallest deeds and making them publicly known to everyone ("what you have whispered in the ear will be shouted from the housetops"), literally dividing billions of people onto his right and left, etc. If we really do have a whole-life review and experience not only our own review and judgment but have awareness of the content of others’ reviews and judgments then this strongly suggests we will occupy a mode of existence that is so vastly different from our current experience that it can scarcely be conceived at present, and certainly the language used to describe it in Scripture must be handled with a significant degree of caution about the mystery that is being described.
Ultimately, the precise mechanics of the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the eternal order on the new heaven and the new earth must be left up to God. While we have indications of what aspects of these will be like, and while we know they will be bodily and future events, their precise constitution is something that we likely cannot even conceive at present, and the Church does not attempt to settle these matters in detail.
So I would say that much of what the reader is presently thinking is in line with Catholic thought. He acknowledges that there is a future and definitive aspect to these realities. What I would recommend that he contemplate (as he may already be doing) is that these realities will have a bodily dimension, even if it is a mode of bodily existence that presently exceeds our ability to imagine.
Hope this helps!
