The Antichrist Had Greater Plans
Carl Olson speculated, “A notable feature of the Left Behind books is the absence of denominations. . . . The Catholic Church apparently doesn’t exist” (“No Rapture for Rome,” November 2000). The Catholic Church, sometimes called “Holy Roman Catholic Mother Church” by the characters, not only exists in the books but plays a crucial role in the Antichrist’s regime.
In the series, prior to the “rapture” the Catholic Church was led by Pope John XXIV, who “stirred up controversy in the church with a new doctrine that seemed to coincide more with the ‘heresy’ of Martin Luther than with the historic orthodoxy [Catholics] were used to” (Tribulation Force, 53). Pope John XXIV and his followers—and some ex-Catholics—disappeared during the rapture. Church officials who were “left behind,” most notably Peter Cardinal Matthews, Archbishop of Cincinnati, interpreted the event thus: “Those who opposed the orthodox teaching of the Mother Church were winnowed out from among us” (Tribulation Force, 53). But the reader knows the opposite is true: “Real Christians” were taken, the others were left behind.
Peter Cardinal Matthews—whose grasp of “Catholic” doctrine is laughable—quickly became the most favored possible successor to John XXIV. But Nicolae Carpathia, the Antichrist, had greater plans. The Cardinal would not only become Pope Peter II, but the “Pontifex Maximus” of the “Global Faith Community,” which took the somewhat predictable official name “Enigma Babylon One World Faith” and excluded only Orthodox Jews and “new Christian believers” (Tribulation Force, 401–402).
The anti-Catholicism inherent to Left Behind’s dispensationalism is not merely implicit. Only Catholics who embrace Protestant doctrines (like Pope John XXIV and the ex-Catholics) can be saved. All the rest join the Antichrist’s forces.
Cat Clark
Steubenville, Ohio
The Catholic Church Is Biased
As a Catholic who is struggling to defend my religion and background, I am very disappointed in your article against the Left Behind series (“No Rapture for Rome,” November 2000). It only proves what I have been fighting against for the last four years: that the Catholic Church is biased and prejudiced against the other “Christian” religions.
If we are all Christian people and of the same God, and we all read one Bible, why are we against each other? And why is the issue with us Catholics whether you are Catholic or not? Shouldn’t the most important issue be our salvation, that we all believe in Jesus Christ our Lord and try to be more like him?
As a Catholic, I am ashamed of not only that article but of many others found in your magazine, and that we are not teaching love and of Jesus, we are teaching that being Catholic is the most important thing. I’m even more afraid your magazine is pushing Catholics away. Lets not just talk the talk, but walk the walk.
Angie Alongi
via the Internet
Editor’s reply: It seems you consider it “biased and prejudiced” to point out other Christians’ bias against Catholics, as in the case of the Left Behind authors. Our goal is to make Catholics aware that some popular Christian beliefs are antithetical to their Catholic faith. We’re not against other Christians. We agree with you that the most important issue is our salvation and that we should “go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19)—which means proclaiming the truth of the Catholic faith.
The Holocaust in Women’s Wombs
Rosalind Moss was absolutely right to point out that Joe Lieberman’s pro-abortion views are an embarrassment to Orthodox Jews or even observant Jews (“A Jew by Any Other Name,” November 2000).
If Mr. Lieberman were observant, he would observe God’s justice at work. Many Jews today are engaged in Holocaust denial, perhaps because today’s holocaust is taking place in women’s wombs. At the same time, Muslims are increasingly teaching that the Holocaust in which millions of Jews perished never happened.
The future existence of the state of Israel is in grave doubt. At the current low Jewish and high Palestinian birth rates, by the year 2050 the number of Palestinians in Israel proper will exceed the number of Jews. At that point, they will simply vote in a prime minister and a Knesset majority who will change the name of the state to Palestine, change the flag to the Palestinian red triangle with black, white and green stripes, and merge with the West Bank state. Since Palestinians already say that the ancient Temple never existed, we can assume that the same people who destroyed Joseph’s Tomb would do the same to the Western Wall. What will happen to Palestinian Jews after that is a question. All because of the holocaust in Israeli women’s wombs.
Marty Barrack
Hardy, Arkansas
Will Fido Be in Heaven?
I was really disappointed in your answer to the question “Do animals have souls?” (“Quick Questions,” November 2000). Not only was it cruel—suppose a child was asking because his beloved pet dog had just died—it was erroneous. Where in Scripture, tradition, or from what early Church Fathers did you get your information on the three types of souls found in vegetables, animals, and humans?
On the subject of heaven, Irenaeus says, “Neither the structure nor the substance of creation is destroyed. It is only the ‘outward form of this world’ (1 Cor. 7:31) that passes away—that is to say, the conditions produced by the fall.”
In his book The Orthodox Church, Fr. Timothy Ware writes, “Not only man’s body but the whole of material creation will eventually be transfigured: ‘Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away’ (Rev. 21:1). . . . ‘The created universe waits with eager expectation for God’s sons to be revealed . . . [ellipses in the original] for the universe itself will be free from its bondage to corruption and will enter into the liberty and splendor of the children of God. We know that until now the whole created universe has been groaning in the pangs of childbirth’ (Rom. 8:19–12).”
“‘A new heaven and a new earth’: Man is not saved from his body but in it; not saved from the material world but with it,” says Archimandrite Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Way. “. . . In the ‘new earth’ of the Age to come there is surely a place not only for man but for animals: In and through man, they too will share in immorality, and so will rocks, trees and plants, fire and water.”
You only need a heart and an awareness of God’s all-embracing love to know that animals do have souls that survive death. Anyone who has loved a pet and been loved by that pet in return knows the truth of this. But the best proof is that God is love, and animals are capable of great love—a love so deep that they have been known to sacrifice their lives for the objects of their love.
Kate Prescott
Altoona, Pennsylvania
Editor’s reply: The answer we gave reflects received Catholic teaching and may be supported from any number of sources (e.g., Thomas Aquinas). Regarding the sources you cite, we of course honor Irenaeus as an important Church Father. And though we reject nothing of the much that is good in the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition, we should note that Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), while a highly valuable writer, does not represent the Catholic theological tradition.
In point of fact, however, neither Irenaeus nor Ware says that individual animals from this age will be present in the next. The most that could be concluded (and this would be a stretch in the case of Irenaeus) is that animals in general will be present in the new earth but not that specific animals from this earth will be.
While many animals express natural affection that we regard as love, it is at most a natural love, not the supernatural love that unites one to God. The Catechism explains that while “one can love animals, one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons” (CCC 2418).
It may be pointed out to a small child grieving the loss of a pet that if he really needs a pet to be happy in heaven, he will have it—a principle that applies also to other things one will not need to be happy in heaven.
Guideposts Mea Culpa
We have a department in Guideposts for Kids magazine titled “Tips from the Top.” Well, here’s a tip from our top editors—never make a mistake or you will regret it!
Regarding Tim Ryland’s article in the October 2000 issue of This Rock (“Tyndale was No Super Hero”), we never meant to alienate any of our readers with our comic, “Manhunt!” (Guideposts for Kids, March/April 1999). Guideposts has been—and continues to be—a company committed to providing inspirational stories and practical content for people of all faiths. For those, Catholic or otherwise, whom we offended with our portrayal of William Tyndale’s story, we sincerely apologize.
Mary Lou Carney
Editor-in-Chief, Guideposts for Kids
Somewhat Misleading
Jason Evert wrote, “If Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch. He included them in his first German translation, published before the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent)” (“How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals,” September 2000).
While all this is correct, it is somewhat misleading if taken at face value. The average reader will think that Luther, and those involved in the other examples, considered the deuterocanonical books as canonical at that time. My understanding is that they didn’t accept them as canonical, but placed them in the middle of or following those books they did deem canonical.
I first heard this fact on “Catholic Answers Live” where Steven Ray made a statement similar to Evert’s argument, and James Akin said to him basically what I am saying here.
Justin Nickelsen
Camas, Washington