Milleniarism, postmillenialism, premillenialism, amillenialism and Catholic Cathechism

Peter,
I am not being funny, but when you say you think the second group has it on points is that because they have the papal magisterium, the Catholic Catechism and 2000 years of Ecumenical Councils to back up their theory?

 

No, it's because I don't read those sources as disqualifying the 'era of peace' with certain important provisos, namely i) the obvious one about excluding any literal millenium with the physical presence of Christ on earth and ii) exclusion of the notion that the era of peace represents the definitive coming of the Kingdom (that can't be right, given that there will be a subsequent ultimate rebellion, Gog and Magog etc.).

My view is that the Iannuzzi-Miravalle-Mallett line (plus Fatima according to a certain interpretation of the 'Triumph' of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) doesn't transgress any of this. I know you see this differently, and here there seems to be an irreducible disagreement. Probably because our understanding of what is meant by 'millenialism' isn't the same.

My main concern is the interpretation of Revelation 20, given that Christian orthodoxy regards tradition as 'Scripture correctly interpreted'. If the Second Coming is indeed just around the corner (and please don't think I'm saying that it's not, as I have no fixed notion of how long any 'era of peace' might last), where are we in relation to Rev 20:1-7? A secondary concern is Akita given its status as an approved apparition: if there is to be some kind of Chastisement - a prospect at which I shudder - what is the relationship of this to the Second Coming? What would be its purpose?

 

Peter,
On the idea of chastisements, I would expect them as part of the lead up to the second coming as Our Lord said "Nations will be in agony". Its a blessing we dont know what will happen. There is a quote from Mirjana of Medjugorje in the red Milan Prayer Group book from 1985 where she said "now it is a time of grace, after will come the purification and then the meeting with Jesus Christ". As Vatican II stated "There is to be no new Revelation of Jesus Christ" before the end of the world, if Medjugorje is true, it can only refer to the Second coming. Further evidence in this view comes from a letter of Ivan available on the Diocese of Mostar website from 1985 in which he addressed Bishop Zanic. Ivan quoted Our Lady saying to the Bishop "Father I'm here in Medjugorje. I chose my messengers to announce to the world the good news, to free the world from the valley of sin, hatred, wars, struggles and other sins. " Now surely even those who accept the millenium theory maintain sin will be in the world during the era of peace, therefore, for Our Lady to state the world will be free from all sins, struggles etc would be millenarianism, unless it referred to the new heaven and new earth after the final coming of Jesus.

 

Thanks for responding to this one, Stephen. However, since you mention Medjugorje, I'm not sure that too much isn't being read into Our Lady's words (hasn't the Gospel always been about freeing the world from the 'valley of sin'?) as an indication of the new heavens and new earth subsequent to the final coming of Christ. In other words from Medjugorje, we for example have:

Obviously I'd need to see the Croatian original to make a properly informed comment, but it would seem that the phrase 'a time of peace' cannot be subsequent to the final coming of Christ which winds up history. Furthermore, Mary here appears to imply that our prayers can affect the coming of the 'time of peace', whereas that would be a fairly unusual understanding of the relationship between prayer and Jesus's parousia, to say the least.

Similarly,

I don't want to fall into the trap of trying to scrutinize these words as one might a work of systematic theology, but again, the words 'God's peace begins to rule the world' seem IMHO to sit much better with an era (whatever the length) within time than one at the close of history.

Another thing that I find less than fully convincing, given Mary's constant concern to point us away from herself and towards her Son, is the idea that she could refer to this coming of peace (as at Fatima) without referencing the coming of Christ if the two are one and the same event. That seems out of character to me.

Please don't get me wrong - much of what I've read so far of 'Heralds' finds me in wholehearted agreement with you (and Cardinal Dias). We may have a difference of interpretation on the millenium question, but I wouldn't want to overplay this.

 

Really? you think that Mallet-Ianuzzi have advantages over the Catholic Catechism, Popes, Saints ( St. Augustine to start with), Councils and 2000 years of Church history? Wow, that is a very bold statement
But everyone chooses the group they want to stay with.

As for me, there are no words from Our Lord Jesus Christ about anything else except Second Coming for Last Judgement - He never mentions any millennium in the Gospels.
So it basically goes to agree to disagree or choosing between the two - Jesus Christ Himself, who does not mention Millennium era or St. John and his words in chapter 20 of the Revelation ( totally symbolic where the words of Our Lord are very direct, without any symbolism).

 

I do not see any disagreement here, since for both positions one as individual has to do basically the same.

I also do not see any reason why prophesied warnings, miracles or chastisements(I lump them all together) can not precede the Last Judgement - as for me they all fit perfectly there. Including the prophecy of the Triumph of the Immaculte Heart of Mary - of course it will, after the Judgement Day in a New heaven and on a New Earth.

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581

678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgement of the Last Day in his preaching.581 Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light.582 Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God's grace as nothing be condemned.583 Our attitude to our neighbour will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love.584 On the Last Day Jesus will say: "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."585
679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgement on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He "acquired" this right by his cross. the Father has given "all judgement to the Son".586 Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself.587 By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.58

VI. Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth
1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. the universe itself will be renewed:
The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.629
1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."630 It will be the definitive realization of God's plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."631
1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.632 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."633
1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been "in the nature of sacrament."634 Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, "the holy city" of God, "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."635 She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community.636 The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.
1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay.... We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.637
1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, "so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just," sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.638
1048 "We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. the form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men."639
1049 "Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society."640
1050 "When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom."641 God will then be "all in all" in eternal life:642
True and subsistent life consists in this: the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, pouring out his heavenly gifts on all things without exception. Thanks to his mercy, we too, men that we are, have received the inalienable promise of eternal life.643

 

I think you misunderstand what I am saying here. This is evidently a contentious area of doctrine where there are diverse opinions. Although some consider that the statements of Church tradition are unequivocal in condemning the idea of an 'era of peace', others do not read those statements (e.g. Catechism 668-677) in this way. I simply take the view that an 'era of peace' does not necessarily flout any of these sources as long as i) nobody is talking about a millenium of Christ's physical presence on earth and ii) nobody equates the 'era of peace' with the definitive arrival of the Kingdom in all its glory. The patristic evidence assembled by Joseph Iannuzzi in 'The Splendor of Creation' in support of his position may not be unassailable, but it is certainly considerable and demonstrates that there has always been a diversity of positions on this issue within the Church (Augustine alone held three views!).

 

One qualification - yes, I acknowledge that we do of course pray 'Maranatha!', but that doesn't seem to be exactly what Mary is referring to her in her wish for us to pray for peace.

 

No, I simply do not agree( and the Church doctrine is on this side) with the position of any future era of peace/millennium coming - it is already here, almost 2000 years with fluctuations up and down. Now it is clearly down
The concept formulated by Augustine is illustrated below. It is called amillennialism. This strange name derives from the fact that in the Greek language a word is negated by putting the letter "a" in front of it. Thus, amillennial literally means "no thousand years."




Augustine's view of end time events was adopted by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and has remained Catholic dogma to this day.

St. Augustine was for a time, as he himself testifies (City of God XX.7), a pronounced champion of millenarianism; but he places the millennium after the universal resurrection and regards it in a more spiritual light (Sermo, CCLIX). When, however, he accepted the doctrine of only one universal resurrection and a final judgment immediately following, he could no longer cling to the principal tenet of early chiliasm. St. Augustine finally held to the conviction that there will be no millennium.

So St.Augustine DID NOT have 3 viewpoints - he was simply evolving in his understanding, considering the times and Councils. But his FINAL and DOCTRINAL understanding is amillennialism, not the previous ones, which were just stages in learning

 

insearch,

Where has the Church defined amillenialism as THE definitive interpretation?

St. Augustine is not the Church. His interpretation is his interpretation. Please cite a Church document demonstrating that amillennialism is THE, DEFINITIVE, FINAL interpretation of the Millennium. I can find no such document.

And, just to clarify what St. Augustine actually says in De Civitate Dei, he says:

The evangelist John has spoken of these two resurrections in the book which is called the Apocalypse, but in such a way that some Christians do not understand the first of the two, and so construe the passage into ridiculous fancies. For the Apostle John says in the foresaid book, "And I saw an angel come down from heaven. . . . Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Those who, on the strength of this passage, have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period, a holy leisure after the labors of the six thousand years since man was created, and was on account of his great sin dismissed from the blessedness of paradise into the woes of this mortal life, so that thus, as it is written, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years; and that it is for this purpose the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath. And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians. ​

​

St. Augustine DOES NOT object to "a kind of Sabbath-rest during that PERIOD" or to a "future" and "bodily" first resurrection. What he does object to is "the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets" which he then identifies as one of the characteristics of Chiliasm which is one form of the heresy called Millenarianism.

This is what it boils down to: the Church HAS NOT given a final, definitive interpretation of the Millennium.

A Future Era or Period of Peace is NOT heretical. The Era of Peace is NOT the same thing as the Second Coming/Last Judgement/Fulfillment of the Kingdom.

A Period of Peace is quite possible and has been hinted in some Old Testament Prophecies, in the Book of Revelation, and in APPROVED private revelation, specifically at Fatima.

 

In Catholic Catechism. I've provided the articles so many times on this thread - you can look it up. There is NO MILLENNIAL period of peace/grace/whatever BEFORE the Last Judgement in the Catholic Catechism as an event which follows up the first defeat of the satan and separate from the time we are living now

 

As to St Augustine he definitely states this :

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself says, No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man — meaning by the strong man the devil, because he had power to take captive the human race; and meaning by his goods which he was to take, those who had been held by the devil in various sins and iniquities, but were to become believers in Himself. It was then for the binding of this strong one that the apostle saw in the Apocalypse an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a chain in his hand. And he laid hold, he says, on the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,— that is, bridled and restrained his power so that he could not seduce and gain possession of those who were to be freed. Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium— the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world— a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm The City of God

and it is absolutely clear from the quote that he expresses the amillennial vieew - the so-called millenium is a part of the time we are living NOW.

 

insearch,

The portions of the Catechism that you have cited do not discount the Millennium. The Millennium is a reality. It is mentioned explicitly in Sacred Scripture. The portions of the Catechism that you have cited simply say that the fulfillment of the Kingdom will only come with the Second Coming. I agree with that.

The three primary components of Millenarianism that have been condemned are: LITERAL 1000 year reign of Christ IN THE FLESH amidst CARNAL banquets and delights. The Era of Peace was never condemned. St. Augustine never ruled out the possibility of an era of peace. Saint Augustine called the era of peace the "sabbath rest".

As far the Vassula Ryden statement, the language used was "in Millenarian style". And Era of Peace "in Millenarian style" would mean a LITERAL 1000 year reign of Christ IN THE FLESH amidst CARNAL delights. This kind of Era of Peace is heresy. But the Era of Peace was not condemned per se. And in the Church approved apparition of Fatima, Our Lady promises that this period of peace will come. Our Lady doesn't bluff.

In Rev. Iannuzzi's book The Triumph of God's Kingdom in the Millennium and End Times, he references he statements of the early Church Fathers and Writers, who believed in much more than an allegorical Millennium. He cites a 1990 statement by then Cardinal Ratzinger who stated in a 1990 interview with theologian Fr. Martino Penasa that, "the Holy See has not yet made any definitive pronouncement in this regard." He also cites The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine (1952) which bears the Nihil Obstat (Can. Mahoney, S.T.D.) and Imprimatur (E. Morrogh Bernard), which states that it is not contrary to Catholic teaching to profess:

"...a hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things. Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not all certain that there will not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end...The point of division between the legitimate aspirations of such devout believers and...false millenarism is this: the Chiliasts - as believers in the millennium are called, from the Greek word for a thousand - seem to expect a coming of Christ and a presence of him in glory and majesty on this earth which would not be the consummation of all things but would still be a portion of the history of mankind. This is not consonant Catholic dogma...The coming of Christ in the second Advent...is the consummation of all things, the end of human history. If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about, not by the apparition of the Person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church. The Chiliasts of all times...and there are many to be found even to date, seem to despair, not only of the world, but even of that dispensation of grace which was inaugurated at Pentecost; they expect from the visible presence of Christ a complete conversion of the world, as if such a happy result could not be otherwise brought about."​

​

​

​

​

 

yes, they do. They discount it totally - since there is no space for millennium and it is not even mentioned anywhere in the Catechism. Nor it is in the Gospels. Or the Creed. Our Lord Jesus Christ NEVER mentions anything like specific era of peace/millennium (separate from what He has given us) preceding His Second Coming for Last Judgement and following mini-tribulation or chastisement. Tribulations and chastisements are pre-Second Coming only.

And I think I will stay with the Gospels, St.Augustine and Catholic Catechism not with Rev. Ianuzzi on the matter - and it is a doctrine of amillennialism.

 

David
You said this "The three primary components of Millenarianism that have been condemned are: LITERAL 1000 year reign of Christ IN THE FLESH amidst CARNAL banquets and delights." sorry but wrong. If that was the case why did Pope Benedict cite liberation theology as a form of millenarianism?

 

Hi Stephen and all,

Someone sent me the comments from this blog, and I thought I would respond to them here.

Like Stephen, I have been researching and collecting quotes from the popes for nearly 20 years. This would include websites, documents, books, and the like. Recently, someone sent me a copy of Stephen's book. I was delighted to see some quotes that I had not come across. However, I spent several hours finding the exact quotes myself (usually on the Vatican's own website) and linking to those web pages for my readers. These are public statements available to the general public. I am grateful to Stephen for having dug them up, and sent him a personal letter of gratitude.

Which is why I find his comments here a bit troubling on several levels, particularly since he and I have been exchanging cordial emails the past week. Indeed, charity and truth must go together, and unfortunately, Stephen has chosen the public forum to make his comments.

Therefore, Stephen, regarding the "era of peace," if you would like to explain to readers how I have "twisted" "your" quotes, I would be happy to respond. I rarely have the time to engage in forums (which is why the comments are closed on my own website). However, I will do my best to respond here.

Let us all keep in mind that the Church has not made any definitive statements in this regard, which on this point, Stephen is mistaken in both his posts here as well as in his book, which otherwise, is a valuable resource.

The problem I see already with several posts here is a lack of theological background in differentiating the "era of peace" from millenarianism. As someone else said, the "millennium" is already part of Sacred Tradition; it's in the bible. What the patristic writings, theology, and the mystics of the 20th century have done is give us a deeper understanding of this aspect of Revelation. See my post where I have quoted two related magisterial statements in this regard: http://www.markmallett.com/blog/dear-holy-father-he-is-coming/

Mark

 

Mark,
Sorry, but I consulted two Cardinals- professors of theology who worked in the CDF and both said no to your theory. My book is backed by an imprimatur, and endorsed by theologians. If you look at the post I made earlier today in the other thread, you can defend you thesis. Find me one-just one papal quote that mentions a temporal era or the millennium explicitly in reference to Rev 20 and I will be open to this theory.

 

Insearch,

I am surprised that in your response to David, you reiterated your previous position without commenting on his final paragraph-which happened to be his main contention-and which referenced two points of exception. Though Cardinal Ratzinger was not speaking ex cathedra in 1990, his position as head of the CDF merits a certain degree of respect.

Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!

 

Stephen,

Did the two referenced theologians actually read Mark Mallett's blog or his book, The Final Confrontation, to reach their conclusions?

Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!

 

Mario,
No they didnt. What I asked was whether all millenial theories associated with Rev 20 (as a future era of peace within history) Had been rejected.