Milleniarism, postmillenialism, premillenialism, amillenialism and Catholic Cathechism

The discussion started on the Garabandal thread and since it is not appropriate there I am moving it here



Different authors use differnet terms, but milleniarism is actually the same as premillenialism or chialism and the belief is based on the actual reign of Christ for 1000 years and general triumph of the Church for 1000 years before final unleashing of evil ( not Catholic teaching and was declared heresy before St.Augustine).This is based upon LITERAL interpretation of Revelation Chapter 20.
There is also amilleniarism which some name postmillenialism, now-millenialism or realized millenialism and it means that reign of Jesus Christ and His Church started ~ 30 A.D. and is continued until now - this is an accepted position of the Catholic Church, based on the symbolic interpretation of Revelation Chapter 20.

 

the thread is started because the discussion here:
http://motheofgod.com/threads/garabandal-news.2443/page-107#post-37375

posts 2135-2147

Hope Glenn will help to move the posts from that thread to here - the topic is interesting, since a lot of discussions here are interspersed by belief in literal 1000 year period of peace and grace BEFORE the final unleashing of the evil - which is in direct contradiction with Catholic Catechism

 

I have to agree with insearch. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in its notification on Vassula Ryden said it was a doctrinal error to expect an era of peace within history. The text made no distinction between certain interpretations on this theory only stating that it was in "millennarian style". This ties in with magisterial teachings from John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI that the world and the church will continue to have suffering until the very end of the world. Also a great argument against it I read the other day, is that if there was to be a millennium in the future of universal peace and sanctification, the jews would surely convert and yet we are told by the Magisterium, Tradition and Sacred Scripture that they will only convert at the end of the world, therefore how could this contradiction be reconciled. For them not to convert in the "millennium" would not be invincible ignorance because of the great sanctification of humanity given by the Holy Spirit-so on that basis they would all be destined to hell. That is obviously not going to be the case, they will convert and as St Paul says, it will then bring about the resurrection of the dead and the end of the world. We are living the millennium now. Jesus reigns over the earth since He has conquered the devil and sin. Baptism is the first resurrection and the second only occurs at the last judgment. the theory given by various people like Fr Innauzzi et al is millenarianism dressed up to look like it isnt. There is a great detailed analysis of this very topic at unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.co.uk going on at present. Well worth a look in.
www.divinemercypopes.com​

 

insearch,

I will have to disagree with you on the idea that a literal 1000 year period of peace is promoted here. I'm a firm believer in a soon-and-coming Era of Peace promised by our Lady at Fatima. How long that shall endure is in question, but I do hope for it's fulfillment. Now, Mark Mallett takes a position that the Era of Peace will be a fulfillment of the Sabbath Rest taught by some early Church Fathers, but even he does not interpret that as a literal 1000 years.

http://www.markmallett.com/blog/

Could you please clarify?

Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!

 

It is not exactly promoted, but is also in a murky fashion discussed as accepted idea. I gave the link to the original thread where it all started - it was my reaction to some copy&paste from mark mallet blog, where the idea was clearly promoted.
Our Lady of Fatima connected some era of peace to a very specific event, which was requested almost 100 years ago and was NEVER fulfilled ( and I do not think it will be) as requested - and all the problems ensued - for some reason I can't understand, the majority of people think that all the evils of Russia and communism did not yet occur - they clearly did and therefore I am not even sure that NOW, even if the consecration of Russia would be done properly as requested, the supposed conversion of Russia will happen - because Russia circa 2013 is NOT Russia circa 1917 - the evil already has had it's feast.


But we are talking about different items here - the original 1000 years of Church triumph is based upon literal understanding of revelation Chapter 20.
Can you, please, read the start of the discussion in Garabandal News?

 

Yes, that is exactly the position of Catholic Church since Nicea Council, when the original milleniarism, or chilaism as it was then called was condemned as heresy.

 

I will repost as quotes all the postings in their order from the other thread, so everybody can see where it started:

1.Jon:

 

2.
me:
Jon, I am not a scholar in Eschatology but Antichrist is going to reign before the Second Coming of Christ or The End of the World, not before the "first resurrection". There has to be only ONE resurrection of the dead, and it is going to be after Second Coming for the Judgement Day. Not sure where the thousand years fit here and as far as I remember milleniarism is actually not recognized by Catholic Church, even considered a heresy, but is popular among Protestants and Zoroastrians.

Good and sound explanations with diagram:

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap090000.htm

In Catholic Church( and the same is in Orthodox) the teaching is that after Ascension Jesus Christ will come one time - for the Last Judgement. There is no space for thousand years of peace and millenial reiign so on.

It is actually a very interesting question and I suspect the eschatological blurriness of the vision of the End Times from many apparitions are the reasons why many of them are not recognized.

 

3. David Wilson​

 

4.me:

​

​

​

​

The Millennium is a fascinating subject, perhaps better suited to its own thread.​

It is NOT a Catholic teaching. It is considered a heresy since Nicea. There is no space for Millenium Reign in Catholic Eschatology. NOW is considered to be the Millenium. Catholics are amillenials, which means they consider it's millenium number mostly symbolic.

​

More on the subject here:​

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture​

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.​

​

Roman Catholics generally follow the teachings of Augustine and the Protestant reformers, and accept Amillennialism. However, they do not generally use the term. They anticipate Jesus coming to Earth and gathering the Church together. But they generally do not use the term "rapture" either According to Catholic Answers, "The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called 'millenarianism' (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism 'cannot safely be taught,' though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue." 13​

insearch, Today at 3:41 PM Edit Delete Report
#2140 Reply

 

5.David Wilson:

​

​

​

MillenARIANism (and its many modified forms) is a heresy. The three primary components that make up this heresy are: 1. A LITERAL 1000 year reign, 2. Christ reigning VISIBLY IN THE FLESH prior to the Second Coming and 3. Carnal delights during the Millennium and the idea that sin, death, and suffering will disappear during this Millennium.​

​

We know that the Millennium WILL happen because it is mentioned specifically in Chapter 20 of St. John's Apocalypse. Amillennialism is but ONE interpretation of the Millennium. It currently happens to be the POPULAR interpretation among theologians since the time of St. Augustine. It is by no means the DEFINITIVE or Traditional interpretation - a point that Cardinal Ratzinger made in an interview with theologian Rev. Martino Penasa in 1990.​

​

But, again, this subject is probably better suited to its own thread.​

 

6.me:

Catechism of the Catholic Church ​

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm​

​

The Church's ultimate trial​

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576​

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578​

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​

​

​

​

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm​

​

IN BRIEF ​

680 Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.​

​

681 On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.​

682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.​

 

It does not matter if the word used or not - it is clearly condemned as heresy during Nicaea council. Amillenialism is a teaching of Catholic Church, which does not consider the era of peace to come anytime except after the Last Judgement

It will not happen - it is happening NOW.
The Magisterium of the Church has never commented on a thousand year reign of Christ because the Church does not see the Second Coming of Christ at any other time than at the general judgment of all men and women which is the same as the resurrection of the dead followed by definitive reward or punishment for souls.
The Church interprets the expression "a thousand years" not literally but according to the literature in which it appears--prophetic and apocalyptic. In apocalyptic literature, a thousand years would simply indicate a long period of time, in this case, the time period before the Second Coming of Christ. Apocalyptic literature is not to be taken literally.

additionally Stephen replied on the topic:

 

I believe the heresy of Chiliasm was condemned at Nicaea. Chiliasm is a false interpretation of the Millennium which said that the Kingdom of God would last for a literal thousand years. Chiliasm is not the same thing as the Millennium and the Millennium was not condemned at Nicaea.

The Millennium is not the same thing as the Last Judgement.

The Millennium has never been defined by the Church. The Church has told us what the Millennium is not, NOT what it is. Cardinal Ratzinger is on the record in a 1990 interview with Rev. Martino Penasa stating that the Church HAS NOT ruled on the proper interpretation of the Millennium.

As to Stephen's quotation regarding Vassula Ryden, the key phrase in that document is "in MillenARIAN style." There is a huge difference between the Millennium and MillenARIANISM. Two very similiar words but one is a heresy and the other is mentioned specifically in Sacred Scripture and has yet to be defined.

 

Non-false interpretation of the millenium is the one that is called amillenialism - and it means that we are living in the era of indirect ( through Church and Sacraments) Christ reign called Millenium in the Revelation Chapter 20

I do not understand why are you all the time repeating that the Church is not considering millenium to be the Last Judgement - I have never stated that - it is a clear nonsense. Same goes for insisting that I confuse Millenium and milleniarism - the latter is the EXPLANATION on WHEN and HOW this Millenium will happen and milleniarism/postmillenialism or chialism which are different names for THE SAME explanation, explain Millenium as era of peace happening BEFORE the Second Coming of Christ in the undefined FUTURE - and it is a heresy. The only other existing explanation is the one which Catholic Church accepts - since Nicaea council - and it is called antimillenialism or realized millenialism, but no matter what is it called, it EXPLAINS the Millenium as happening NOW ( and not in the FUTURE, like millenialism does) starting after the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ ~ 30/33 A.D. There are no other possible explanations - either it is in continuum NOW or it will be in the FUTURE. The latter is condemned as heresy, the former is accepted as Catholic teaching.


What I stated and state again and so does Catholic Catechism - is that there is not going to be any other Second Coming of Christ but for the Last Judgement and there is not going to be any era of peace BEFORE the Second Coming - it is a doctrinal error to state the otherwise as the magisterial teachings from John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI had clearly stated that the world and the church will continue to have suffering until the very end of the world, which is the Judgement Day.

 

insearch,

I stated earlier that the Millennium is not the same thing as the Last Judgment, because you are using sections of the Catechism dealing with the Last Judgement to try and argue your case regarding the Millennium. The Millennium IS NOT the same thing as the Last Judgement. The Millennium IS NOT the same thing as the fulfillment of the Kingdom.

I never stated that there was going to be another coming of Christ in the flesh prior to the Second Coming.

Your statement that there cannot be an era of peace before the Second Coming is not supported by the sections of the Catechism that you have been citing. The Mother of God in the approved apparition at Fatima in fact promised that there would be a period of peace. In fact, Christ demands that we live in peace with ourselves and each other.

The era of peace IS NOT the same thing as the "Fulfillment" of the Kingdom at the Last Judgement.

I never said that there would not be suffering during the era of peace.

 

I used the Catechism teaching to show that there is going to be only ONE Second Coming and not TWO, as the literal interpretation of the Revelation implies, and even not-so-literal by Mark Mallet - that's where the discussion started - initially.

all your other statements are the repetitions of all the same allegations which I already answered. But I will repeat:

The only other existing explanation is the one which Catholic Church accepts - since Nicaea council - and it is called antimillenialism or realized millenialism, but no matter what is it called, it EXPLAINS the Millenium as happening NOW ( and not in the FUTURE, like millenialism does) starting after the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ ~ 30/33 A.D. There are no other possible explanations - either it is in continuum NOW or it will be in the FUTURE. The latter is condemned as heresy, the former is accepted as Catholic teaching.

Halleluiah
So, can we finally agree that we ARE living in that Millenium, era of peace or whatever one might call it and go to bed ( I have to get up early tomorrow)?

 

I just received and finished the book 'Suddenly and Unexpectedly" by T. Michael Fahy (which just came out a couple weeks ago), he has a whole chapter of Our Lady of Garabandal's repeated warnings to the seers of Garabandal that indeed Communism will return much much worse than it ever was. In fact Our Lady of Garabandal said the "warining" would not occur until Communism is at its worst in the world and that Russia will soon be boldly reintroduced and persecute Europe and "will turn rivers red with blood" throughout.

Now I realize not everyone believes in Garabandal, but I, like Saints, Blessed's and holy mystics believe in it. Mary made very clear also, that after the "Warning" Communism would be defeated, Mary's Immaculate Heart will have Triumphed and Russia will convert, followed by 25 years of peace (as fortold by our Lady of Lasallette).

Now I read Stephen's book as well and got much information from past Popes that my 30+ years of study in end times prophecy had not read before. I highly recommend his book. However, the book I just mentioned by Michael Fahy was also very well written, especially for those who believe in Garabandal and its messages. There is much in there I have not read or heard before either. I highly recommend this book as well.

 

Where do you get the idea that there will be Two Second Comings? Mark Mallet has never implied that.

Millenarianism is condemned as heresy, as are all other false interpretations of the Millennium. But nowhere has the Church DEFINED amillennialsim as THE definitive interpretation. If you continue to assert that amillennialism is THE definitive interpretation, then please cite a relevant Church document with the relevant definition.

I do not agree that the Millennium is restricted to an allegorical interpretation because the Church has not yet defined the proper interpretation of the Millennium, and the writings of the early Church Fathers imply much more than a mere allegorical interpretation.

Let's not make this an "either or" scenario. The allegorical interpretation might be correct on one level and the idea that an era of peace is yet to come might also be correct. As we know, passages of Scripture often have multiple levels of meaning.

 

I doubt Russia is going to be invading anyone anytime soon.

In reality, the West is the new "Russia".

Communism is simply Materialism put into political practice.

Russia was never inherently evil. In fact, for most of her history she was Orthodox. It wasn't until relatively recently in her history that Russia was infected by Communism.

Communism is stronger and more popular in the West today than it ever was in the Soviet Union.

Believe it or not, there are actually more legal restrictions on two of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance (abortion and sodomy) in Russia than there are in the West.

The Christian community in the Middle East is today being murdered and displaced in greater numbers than during the Roman Persecution. And who is funding and supporting the Mujahideen behind this persecution? Russia? Nope. The West is behind the so-called Arab "Spring".

I think the time is certainly ripe for the Warning.