Milleniarism, postmillenialism, premillenialism, amillenialism and Catholic Cathechism

My response above that also includes the Cardinal's letter. I don't have much more to add than what I've said.

 

I did not imply otherwise, you simply did not understand, what I was underlining all the time - there is no millennial references in the catechism at all!
Because there is not even ONE WORD about millennium, not even a syllabus - on the whole eschatology part of the Catechism - because Catholic Church does not consider it a valid issue to address in it's catechism.

No, it does not. It does not even mention it in it's Catechism. Which is understandable - the issue has been ruled on more than 1500 years ago, and there is no need to return to something fixed and doctrinal in an Augustinian position.

Neither is any mentioning of it in the Creed.
Nor in the Gospels - Our Lord Jesus Christ never mentioned any era of peace preceding his Second Coming and to happen somewhere in the future.
His Kingdom of God started with HIM - and we are living it today as well - almost 2000years already - and HE stated that explicitly and many times.
And that is the millennium - which the Catholic Church explicitly states in the creed, in the Gospels and in the Catholic Catechism.

It is the ONLY interpretation of the millenium approved by Catholic Church - and all the articles from the Catechism prove it.
Everything else is a heresy - see the Council of Nicaea to start with.
St. Augustine totally discounted any other possibilities of the millennium except amillennial in his FINAL conclusions - what he was thinking BEFORE is irrelevant.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm
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. The struggle between Christ and His saints on the one hand and the wicked world and Satan on the other, is waged in the Church on earth; so the great Doctor describes it in his work De Civitate Dei. In the same book he gives us an allegorical explanation of Chapter 20 of the Apocalypse. The first resurrection, of which this chapter treats, he tells us, refers to the spiritual rebirth in baptism; the sabbath of one thousand years after the six thousand years of history is the whole of eternal life — or in other words, the number one thousand is intended to express perfection, and the last space of one thousand years must be understood as referring to the end of the world; at all events, the kingdom of Christ, of which the Apocalypse speaks, can only be applied to the Church (City of God XX.5-7). This explanation of the illustrious Doctor was adopted by succeeding Western theologians, and millenarianism in its earlier shape no longer received support.

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.

private revelations and private opinions have no comparisons with the Church Doctor and the father of Catholic doctrine in this matter, because it is his, St.Augustine final view which is the base of the Catholic Church doctrine in eschatology, reflected in the Creed and later in Catholic Catechism

 

Insearch,

One has to understand the historical period in which Augustine explored the millennium, which is a biblical concept, and thus part of Tradition (Mr. Wilson has put it well.) Since the bible speaks of a millennium, many of the Church Fathers explained what it meant, even relaying to us that what they were teaching was in fact directly from the Apostle John himself. Unfortunately, in later years, the early Church Father's words were not taken in their allegorical sense, but literally, due in part to the heresy of Chiliasm. In today's Mass readings, we see how the Jewish converts were still thinking according to the Old Covenant; for some, as we know historically, they were expecting a Messiah to reign physically on earth, which was quickly condemned in the early Church.

St. Augustine proposed three interpretations of the millennium. The Church has never condemned any of the three interpretations. The first interpretation was one that explained the millennium according to the proper allegorical interpretations of the early Church Fathers:

The Theological Commission in 1952 gave an interpretation of the millennium along the exact same vein, that there could be a period of triumphant sanctity in the Church, and that this is not heresy as you continue to suggest. As St. Thomas Aquinas said,

This is an echo of what Pius XII taught in modern times:

(In my writing, What If...?, I further explain what these words mean and how they refer to the coming "era of peace.)

Augustine's works were dissected at the time of the Inquisition when "crimes against the faith were regarded as crimes against the state." Any whiff of heresy was met with punishment. And thus, "it is said that the inquisitors carelessly discarded Augustine's first two interpretations of the Sabbath Rest" (see Rev. Iannuzzi's history on this in The Splendor of Creation.) Afterwards, the third interpretation of Augustine's became the generally accepted one for many reasons, not the least, an overreaction to the genuine heresy of millenarianism. But even Augustine admitted himself that it was his opinion. Yes, one among many.

Listen, it has taken the Church 2000 years to come to an agreement on Limbo. Things aren't as black and white as people would like them to be. The proper understanding of the millennium has been utterly awash in heresy, poor interpretation, woeful theology, poor biblical exegesis, improperly formed theologians and clergy, a dismissal of patristic writings, and a lack in some quarters of the modern Church to even glance at apparitions and mystics. The understanding of the millennium is one that requires carefully examination of the whole body of Christian Revelation in the light of proper theology and biblical exegesis. Unfortunately, most aren't willing to take the time...

 

Let me try to address this in two parts:
i) As for why there has not been a new Notification, the explanation is there in Niels Hvidt's report - and it should be re-iterated that he is important not only because of his own theological work on post-Biblical prophecy, but above all as the instigator of the Vassula-Ryden CDF dialogue and as a witness. I have already cited this, as has Mark:

In other words, there would appear to have been a lack of consensus within the CDF itself. Further evidence for this can be found in the fact that Vassula Ryden's 'True Life in God' messages were subsequently published with a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, as well as in the strange present situation in which a substantial number of prelates including Cardinals and Archbishops have publicly associated themselves with Mrs Ryden even while the 1995 Notification has technically not been rescinded. This is anomalous and strongly suggests that we have not yet seen the CDF's final statement in this case.

 

ii) The best clarification on the question of the 'True Life in God' eschatology is found in the answer to now Cardinal Grech by Vassula Ryden herself, which can be read below. Incidentally, the sensitivity and theological depth of her response to this and other questions (which, as Mark has said on the basis of Niels Hvidt's documentation, impressed Cardinal Ratzinger) was a major factor in my taking her seriously rather than dismissing her as the pseudo-mystic which she is frequently portrayed to be by people who have not examined the evidence adequately.

What she writes is entirely consistent with the line of argumentation being offered by Mark and Joseph Iannuzzi, namely that what stands condemned by the Church as millenarianism should not be equated with the New Pentecost/internal renewal by the Holy Spirit about which they are talking. It should be noted that among the various disapproved forms of millenarianism in ch. 7 The Splendor of Creation by Fr Iannuzzi even the mildest term 'mitigated millenarianism' condemned in 1944 still refers to a belief in a visible reign of Christ, which nobody is proposing here:

 

Mark,
Nothing you have said changes anything. The Day of the Lord refers from the point of the second coming beyond. Nowhere in the CCC does it explain your private version. You are spreading a private version of events which is not to be found. Ratzinger (as i show in my book) clarifies the millennial thinking of St Irineaus and as you well know it does not back up your theory-but of course you dont want to mention that. Ask yourself why are other theologians loyal to the Pope not discussing this issue? Why is it only those who follow this and that private revelation (including ones who are the subject of a CDF notification for doctrinal errors) who are bringing up something everyone else left behind centuries ago? You completely overplay a few Church Fathers when another group were completely against it. I have read your blog posts now and again over the years and nothing has ever changed my opinion about the millenarian tendencies. What you do is interpret Tradition and Scripture in the light of private revelation. That is your mistake. The Church teaches us it is the other way round.

 

Peter,
why is liberation theology cited by Pope Benedict as a form of millenarianism?

 

Pope John Paul II said this in 1994 "It is certainly not a matter of indulging in a new millenarianism, as occurred in some quarters at the end of the first millennium; rather, it is aimed at an increased sensitivity to all that the Spirit is saying to the Church and to the Churches (cf. Rev 2:7 ff."
This quote alone shows how the theory of Fr Iannuzzi, Mark Mallett and those others who pedal millenarianism is so very wrong. In the arguments on here this past week, the defense of this position is that the Church has condemned a certain form - a literal coming of Jesus in the flesh, carnal desires etc, and yet here the Pope refers to NEW forms of it. If liberation theology was condemned for it which proposed no such glorious era to come only a socio/political one, then without a shadow of a doubt this temporary kingdom idea is much closer to the pure form.

 

The reason why liberation theology qualifies as millenarianism seems clear from CCC 676:

What is clearly targeted here are those forms of liberation theology which effectively reduce the Kingdom to an intra-worldly realization of socio-political goals, often by means of a tactical compromise with Marxism and the condoning of armed insurrection.

While saying this, it would seem prudent not to jump to hasty judgments about individual liberation theologians; anyone who has read either Cardinal Ratzinger's 'The Dialectics of Secularization' dialogues with Jürgen Habermas, the 'End of Time' 1999 conversations on eschatology with Johann Baptist Metz and Jürgen Moltmann or the encylical Spe Salvi will be aware that Pope Benedict's view of liberation theology is far more nuanced than simple blanket condemnation. What characterizes his 'hermeneutic of continuity' more generally is an appreciation of the need to acknowledge the importance of social justice and the legitimacy of certain human/societal aspirations, but crucially coupled with an insistence that the Gospel cannot be reduced to the political and that the 'messianic hope' referred to in the Catechism can only be realized eschatologically by God, not by human efforts to transform worldly power structures.

It ought to be clear that, given its excessive concentration on the socio-political, liberation theology in the negative sense (as opposed to a true theology of liberation in which the world is changed by the inward renewal of the human being in Christ) is oceans away from the type of inner transformation by the power of the Holy Spirit about which Mark, Vassula Ryden and Joseph Iannuzzi are talking.

 

Great Peter,
So we are finally getting somewhere. You now acknowledge that millenarianism isnt just confined to the purest form.
As Pope Benedict stated in 2007 "It is now obvious that these facile millenarianisms - which as a consequence of the revolution promised the full conditions for a just life immediately - were mistaken." Therefore the idea of a temporary Kingdom with a "new and divine holiness" which by its very definition would promise full conditions of a just life is also millenarianism. I repeat again what I said earlier. Liberation theology never promised anything like the miraculous transformation Mark Mallett's theory does. If the popes condemn a much less miraculous form then they ceratainly condemn this one.

 

also when Mark prays Come Lord Jesus in glory as he did in that post (and explaining it to pertain to a temporal Kingdom) he isnt falling into this trap "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" ?
Lets not keep moving the goalposts

 

Hold on a minute ... I'm not sure I follow the logic here.
i) the key element in the disapproval of millenarianism in CCC676 is the collapsing of the Kingdom into the world which effectively dismisses the element of eschatological judgment (this is also targeted at certain over-ambitious extensions of the thought of Teilhard de Chardin during and post Vatican II, as is clear from the condemnation of the notion of a 'progressive ascendancy' towards the Kingdom). The issue is not whether liberation theology is more or less 'miraculous' than what Mark is proposing - indeed, you might say that the very problem with LT is that it leaves no room for the miraculous and takes the transformation of the world into our own hands. Whereas what MM/Vassula and others are suggesting in terms of a New Pentecost is that the changing of hearts via the purifying action of the Spirit will have a decisive impact on the world.

ii) Defending Mark's prayer ...We need to be careful not to succumb to 'either-or' thinking. The prayer for Christ to come in glory is one that can be prayed on several levels. Just because we affirm the priority of the eternal over the temporal does not mean that God is not interested in what goes on in the world here and now. This has to be a 'both-and'. Otherwise why did God through Christ give us the words 'thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven' two thousand years ago (with the Father knowing already that his Son would not be returning for a while ...)? Of course we affirm that Christ will come in final glory and pray for that, but there is a sense in which the conversion of the believer already represents Christ's coming in glory on the individual plane to the extent that God is glorified in her/his life and His kingship extended. Conversion is by its very nature eschatological, since the indwelling of the eternal and life-giving Holy Spirit is already an anticipation ('prolepsis') of the life of the world to come. This is affirmed in Hebrews 6:5 where believers are described as those who 'have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age'.

What I am saying is that the sanctifying work of the Spirit referred to in the concept of the New Pentecost cannot be played off against the Second Coming, because of the essential unity of God's eternal plan of salvation. It is rather its anticipation.

 

Peter,
I think you are on dodgy theological ground with several elements here. The Church does not teach anything about Jesus coming in glory other than the second coming .That is a simple fact. See the Catechism and the Compendium of the Catechism. On that logic, why not give another definition to the Holy Eucharist as well? Blurring the distinction of already defined teachings cannot be right. Its placing one on a level with those chosen by God to explain the true teachings. Jesus made a very clear distinction between his various comings-as did the New Testament writers . Yes by all means pray come Lord Jesus in my life etc, but not in glory. That is reserved for the Last Judgment.
Your point about millenarianism is wrong also because it doesnt deny the necessity of the eschatological judgment but places within history the hope of a just life which cannot be gained until the new heaven and earth arrive. Your position about LT leaving no room for the miraculous is precisely the point Cardinal Ratzinger wrote as erroneous in his book on Eschatology:"The term refers to a conception which is indeed based in eschatology, that is, the expectation of a new world of God’s making, but is not satisfied with the eschaton beyond time and beyond the end of the world. Instead, it virtually duplicates eschatology by expecting God to achieve his purpose with man and history in this world as well as in the next, so that even within history there must be an end time in which everything will be as it should have been all along. This entails a confusion of the intra historical and the meta-historical categories. Chiliasts are waiting for something in history, but in forms which per se do not belong to historical thought; the meta historical becomes miraculous by being expected in an historical form. Such a schizoid expectation has its roots in the plurality of meanings and the plurality of forms taken by the Old Testament and Jewish hope of salvation". This passage apllies to all forms of the millennium other than the one accepted by the Church, namely that we are in the millenium now-the era of the Church as Fr John Hardon stated. It is precisely a "schizoid expectation" that Mark Mallett et al propose. there is no chance that Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict accepted this temporal Kingdom idea. Everything he said before and since backs it up.

 

Peter and Mark,

It was not just LT to be condemned, the whole idea of new Pentecost is against the CCC 676 and therefore is condemned. There was only ONE Pentecost and inventing ghe "new" one is outside the the Magisterium.

 

Insearch... there was just "one" Eve too, but Holy Mother Church recognizes Mary as the New Eve!

 

It has nothing to do with the clear-cut eschatology techings of the Magisterium. Catholic Church recognizes Our Lady as the second Eve, but it has condemned repeatedly eschatology inventions of "new" Pentecost, "new" kingdom to come before the Last Judgement, "new" earthly salvation and all other modifications of millenniarism and Rupture

 

That is but another example of a secular version of that hope, driven by man himself, and is not a reference to the position Mark supports. Here Ratzinger first defines correct eschatology as "the expectation of a new world of God's making." Then he goes on to describe an attempt by "man" to duplicate or bring this about. When he characterizes it in relation to meta-historical, he refers to a very specific form of this from 1200 that is credited to spawning Marxism later, in which Joachim of Floris (who was unhappy with the Chruch in that age), went so far as to say in a final stage the "spiritual brotherhood of man" would replace the Church.

It all comes down to what is implied by the use of the term "in history". You are blanketing all thought with your interpretation, but it appears that most references of its use are characterizing eschatology that is man centered, not a new world "of God's making". Ruling out an era of peace, facilitated by the Holy Spirit and the New Pentecost, by this type of blanketing is like the many 2D characters of Flatland who can't perceive the 3rd dimension, therefore reject it based on their faulty assumption that their intellects are complete, and only what they can observe defines the Truth.

I think the Chruch HAD to be vigilant against the secularization of these ideas. Look where Marx took it. But, that vigilance, as Mark has pointed out, seems to have produced some level of overreaction/over-correction out of fear of those true heresies manifesting, leaving no room for a proper understanding of the possibilities of how these prophecies from Revelation 20 (and Our Lady of Fatima) could come about, through God the Holy Spirit, not man.

 

Thanks very much, Jon. I was wondering when Joachim of Fiore was going to turn up in this discussion ... and Flatland has been one of my favourite metaphors for a while now!

What is unfortunate in this conversation is that there has been a lot of talking at cross purposes because of a deeper divergence over the relationship between words and spiritual experience (you might also say that there is a tension between left- and right-brained personality types). I get the impression that Mark was touching on this with his reference to scholastic theology. The scholastic mindset is analytical and looks for clear logical schema in the hope of creating a coherent and manageable theological system , i.e. a compendium of Correct Doctrinal Statements. That has value, of course, but a huge amount of theological work happened in the twentieth century (spurred by a re-discovery in the West of the Greek Fathers via the work on Patristics by people such as Jean Daniélou and Henri de Lubac) in re-evaluating scholasticism and its relationship to the early centuries of Christian thought in which the apophatic element, i.e. the experience of transcendental mystery, was given pride of place. In this older tradition (which has been preserved in the Eastern Church), words are inevitably inadequate to convey spiritual realities because an encounter with the living God who is beyond all categories effectively demolishes our puny human logic and solicits worship rather than analysis.

The result of this is that there has historically been a tension between scholastics and mystics, because for the former words have clear-cut meanings, whereas for the latter they are only a gloss on a deeper, wordless experience. As a consequence, when the mystically-inclined try to talk about the spiritual life, they tend to put less emphasis on analytical precision in their language, using poetry and metaphor. This then gets interpreted by the scholastics as heresy because they try to interpret it in their logical categories. On the other hand, the advocates of mystical theology are suspicious of scholastics because they see something fishy in the attempt of systematic theology to compartmentalize everything, thereby effectively putting God in a box and making Him an object of human reasoning. For them scholasticism is reductive, a kind of 'theological technology' if you like.

For my money I get the impression that this is a large part of what is going on in this thread and the reason why the two sides are having trouble talking to one another. Am I making sense here?

 

You are definitely making sense, and are using a much better (more charitable) way of describing it than my Flatland attempt (sorry Stephen). I was trying to think of a way to express my feeling that one side was staking out a "limiting" (reductive) position, using boundaries that the other side just doesn't see as limiters in that way.

The reductive position has value too....it just depresses me.....;-)

...And I am typically one of those left & right brained at the same time people: degree in mechanical engineering (due to math/science aptitude), then quickly transitioned to Product Marketing (of higher tech products), but my true loves were always music (played lead guitar in many rock bands over my younger days), and studying history/theology to learn who we really are, how we got here, and where we are going...

 

This thread is exasperating!!