Milleniarism, postmillenialism, premillenialism, amillenialism and Catholic Cathechism

Whilst I am not smart enough to be able to follow this thread in its entirety I have enjoyed reading the posts and I am always pleased when the spirit of charity prevails.

Here is a scenario:

What if the world were to convert and turn to God in the fullness faith in the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Surely, peace would reign in our hearts and peace would reign in the world?

I recognise this as an unlikely scenario but if all men adored and worshipped God in Spirt and Truth the temporal impact would be a peace -

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you.

Our Lord does indicate that there is a temporal consequence to sin.

For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies

 

But that has been occuring since the first century!!! Why do we need to "invent the wheel" if that has been there for two millennia?!?

People have been converting from ground zero - and look how much have we spread! From just a few dozen people to a billion!

It amazes me that the worshippers of the new Pentecost/millennium/does not matter what , just NEW - discard aside what we have had all along the whole Church history and what is Our Lord's words and directions.
We have had the Kingdom of God since ~30 A.D and if we live according to the commandments of Our Lord - that is exactly what He required from us when he was between us - the Saviour and the Redeemer.

WHY do we need anything else?

p.s. the last paragraph is not directed at you, Garabandal, it is a generalization, which stemms from not only this but the other threads which directly depict that astonishing forgetfullness.

 

Insearch, I can respect the fact that you and Stephen have your opinion on the millenium. I also understand that your opinion, based on your interpretation of scriputre, Church writtings etc.. differs from many of ours. You make very clear that you feel those of us that believe in an era of peace are just plain wrong. This I do not respect.

I for one am very happy to have had Mark Mallett, so patiently, thoroughly and from my point of veiw accurately interpret the age of peace that so many Church Father's, mystics, popes and yes, even the Blessed Mother has manifested. I do not feel you or anyone else should be mad about us "worshippers" putting our faith into what our hearts tell us is a probability. This is not a settled doctrine of faith and until it is, we remain sincere in our faith believing in an era of peace on earth.

 

Hi Stephen,

Ironically, when you say the Day of the Lord refers to the point of the second coming, that is indeed a personal opinion that diverges from the Church Fathers:

St. Paul, in his second letter, writes,

...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. (2 Pet 3:8)​

What does this mean? Rather than imposing a subjective or personal opinion on the Scriptures, we must rather turn to the Church, beginning with the Church Fathers, to understand what is meant.

Let us now devote our attention to the Apostolic Fathers; that is, to the first and second generations in the Church subsequent to the Apostles. And thus, we can see where the Church's journey begins in history. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, General Audience, March 7th, 2007​

We turn to the early Church Fathers because they began the development of doctrine according to what they received through Apostolic Tradition.

The true teaching, therefore, is not that invented by intellectuals, which goes beyond the Church's simple faith. The true Gospel is the one imparted by the bishops who received it in an uninterrupted line from the Apostles... Apostolic Tradition is "one." —POPE BENEDICT XVI, The Fathers, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, p. 26-27​

And so, what did the Fathers say about this, and of course, about the millennium St. John wrote about: the "thousand year" reign?

…this day of ours, which is bounded by the rising and the setting of the sun, is a representation of that great day to which the circuit of a thousand years affixes its limits. —Lactantius, Fathers of the Church: The Divine Institutes, Book VII, Chapter 14, Catholic Encyclopedia; www.newadvent.org​

And again,

Behold, the Day of the Lord shall be a thousand years. —Letter of Barnabas, The Fathers of the Church, Ch. 15 ​

Thus, the Fathers give a point of departure to which they themselves further explain what is meant. The "Day of the Lord", according to Apostolic Tradition, has a midnight, dawn, midday, and setting (see Two More Days). Through their own words and subsequent theology of many theologians, we have—like the early Church—come to understand that the return of Our Lord is preceded by the ebb and flow of the Holy Spirit according to God's plan of salvation.

Stephen, you can continue to say over and over again this or that is Mark and Fr. Joseph's personal opinion. But that is an ignorant statement, devoid of any merit since both his books and mine, and over 750 writings on my website use only the Apostolic Tradition, Magisterial Statements, the Catechism, etc. to explain the theology of the end times and the "era of peace." We in fact have no business repeating anything else but what the Church has taught.

 

As we can all see, there is nothing clear-cut about eschatology. God has purposely "veiled" the end times so as to keep every generation "on its toes." The word Apocalypse actually means "unveiling," as in a wedding veil. It is a prophetic book, and as St. Paul says, we "see dimly as in a mirror." But then, both the Church and Scripture affirm that the "veil" will keep lifting and our understanding will deepen throughout time.

Unfortunately, bad theology, poor scholarship, heresies, politics, etc. etc. over the centuries have further marred a proper theological development of the end times, beginning with historian Eusebius' distortion of Church Father Papias' writings (see How the Era was Lost):

Indeed, the misappropriation of Papias’ doctrines to certain Jewish-Christian heresies of the past emerges precisely from such faulty opinion. Some theologians inadvertently adopted Eusebius’ speculative approach… Subsequently, these ideologues associated everything and anything that borders on a millennium with Chiliasm, resulting in an unhealed breach in the field of eschatololgy that would remain for a time, like an ubiquitous stricture, attached to the salient word millennium. —Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi, The Triumph of God’s Kingdom in the Millennium and End Times: A Proper Belief from the Truth in Scripture and Church Teachings, St. John the Evangelist Press, 1999, p. 20​

I am not a theologian. But I think a prayerful and careful reading of theologian Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi's books on this subject (recommended by Archbishop George Pearce and Bishop James Garland, not to mention Rev. George Kosicki, one of the "fathers of Divine Mercy") for those who are interested, is an excellent investment in time.

God bless you.

 

Ha! That is funny!

But I do agree with other posters—without an agreement on fundamental approaches to biblical exegesis and an acknowledgment of early Apostolic Tradition, we will just go in circles.

Which one of us here wants to embrace heresy?

I did say what I felt compelled to say here, and so it is time to retreat to my cave. I don't want to be a source of division in any way, but a source of encouragement to others that we have not been abandoned; we have not been left to a subjective interpretation of the end times (2 Pet 1:20). The Sacred Tradition of the Church is there regarding the eschaton, and is being more deeply understood by the hour as the times unfold before us. Moreover, we have the rare gift in our times of mystics (and the Mother of God) who are shedding further light upon the Church's Public Revelation.

Thanks to all who welcomed me here. May God bless your dialogue that it may be fruitful and bear the fruit of peace!

**Note: I apologize. I forgot to respond to one poster here, which I have done below. Thanks!

 

Mark - thanks for your input.

Your writings reflect a lot of hard study and prayerful reflection -

Rest assured you and your family be covered in our prayers on this forum. Indeed we will pray that the mission that the Lord has put before you will bear fruit in due season. For He is faithful to the end.

 

It is not my opinion - it is the Catholic Church doctrine, for more than 1500 years. heterodoxy of Mark Mallet et al might be called an opinion

and I am not mad - I am amazed. You should understand the difference

the writings of those Church Fathers on millennial doctrine were condemned as heresy already on Nicaea council and later confirmed on numerous others, so per CCC reverting back to those writings is against CCC.

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, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism. (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 194).

 

Great discussion on the issue ( yeah, we are NOT the only ones on the web )here:
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-millennium-in-catholic-tradition.html


The idea of a future Eucharistic Reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years after an intermediate Paraousia (during which time Our Lord would supposedly rule invisibly on earth from heaven), is a concept which was first proposed in the writings of contemporary Catholic theologian Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi. It is of great importance here to realise that this work should be considered separately from the traditional Catholic amillennialist of the Apocalypse - a line of interpretation which has been followed by mainstream theologians since St. Augustine first clearly elucidated the true meaning of the millennium in the Book of Revelation.
According to Fr. Iannuzzi and his followers, who like the Protestant dispensationalists, hold to an overly literal view of the chronology of the Book of Revelation, there will a thousand year millenary reign of Christ following the defeat of the Antichrist - a historic triumph of the Church which is to be equated with the era of peace foretold in the Secret of Fatima. Much in line with the postmillennial view forwarded by some Protestant commentators, Fr. Iannuzzi suggests that after this glorious future thousand year reign of Christ is over, Satan will once again be let loose from his chains during his "little while" in order to deceive the inhabitants of the earth, before finally being thrown into the lake of fire by Christ at his final Coming.
In an attempt to lend his argument an air of credibility, Fr. Iannuzzi relies on the writings of a select few of the early Church Fathers before St. Augustine who had adhered to the concept of a future millennial reign of Christ on earth. Yet although some of the early Church Fathers clearly forwarded millenarian/chiliastic views, they were not viewed by later theologians to be heretical, since they had lived in an age before the Holy Spirit revealed the true meaning of the millennium to the Church in the writings of St. Augustine. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the full truth of Scripture is something that is only revealed to the Church in stages over the course of the centuries:

Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
(CCC 66)

So the evident chiliasm in the writings of some of the early Church Fathers can be put down to the fact did not yet possess any special insight into parts of Scripture that were still not fully illuminated by the Holy Spirit. They were merely attempting to make the best sense they could out of what is one of the most mysterious aspects of Christian eschatology. But after St. Augustine had revealed that the millennial reign of Christ started with His earthly ministry and that it encompassed the age of the Church, the chiliastic idea that Christ would reign for a thousand years with the saints on earth was subsequently recognised as a dangerous heresy which unduly emphasised the importance of the worldly realm over the spiritual. This was in keeping with Christ's declaration that "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).
Fr. Iannuzzi attempts to bypass the charge of millenarianism by making a distinction between Christ reigning visibly on earth in the flesh for a thousand years (which is the straight, undiluted form of chiliasm), from the notion that he could reign invisibly for a thousand years from heaven in His presence in the Eucharist. This slight modification of millenarian ideas has enabled his work to escape from being immediately condemned by the Church. Stephen Walford contends in his book Heralds of the Second Coming that Fr. Iannuzzi's work falls into the category of "mitigated millenarianism", which was ruled out by Pius XII in 1944. I would argue that Fr. Iannuzzi's work is an example of the "modified forms" of millenarianism condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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 judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.
(CCC 676)

Ever since St. Augustine of Hippo presented his understanding of the Apocalypse in the monumental work City of God, Catholic theologians have unswervingly adhered to the amillennialist position, which holds that the "millennium" began with the binding of Satan in the ministry of Christ, and that this "1000 years" symbolises the age of the Church as the kingdom of Christ on earth. For Catholics, Christ is already the King who reigns from heaven forever, and has done since the Incarnation - we do not need to wait until some point in the future for His millennial reign from heaven. Indeed accepting the amillennialist position outlined by St. Augustine (who as a doctor of the Church, is considered by Catholic theologians to be the ultimate authority on this matter) is a vital key to understanding the significance of the "little while" given to Satan - when he is unleashed after the "1000 years" are over. I believe that this "little while" of the unbinding of the Devil directly corresponds to the period of the Great Apostasy and Pope Leo XIII's vision of the 100 years of Satan's greater power, and is consequently related to the horrors of the 20th century.

 

Hi "insearch"

I'm sorry, I did mean to reply to some of your points earlier. Yes, of course, there are several people in the Church who have mistaken an "era of peace" or "period of peace" for millenarianism. I have explained in several posts already, using the words of the popes themselves, what the difference is:

The biblical representation of the End rejects the expectation of a definitive state of salvation within history. This position is also rationally correct, since the idea of a definitive intra-historical fulfillment fails to take into account the permanent openness of history and of human freedom, for which failure is always a possibility... The historical process can only be perfected beyond itself. —Cardinal Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, p. 213-214 (quoted also in Stephen's book)​

We must reject any notion of a "definitive state of salvation" which rightly falls under the category of millenarianism. Absolutely no where in my writings or Fr. Iannuzzi's will you find any such claim to a definitive state of salvation in the Church within the bounds of history. Neither have any of the proponents of an era of peace here, from what I've read, said any such thing. But we know in the mystical theology of the Church that certain saints have reached high stages of union and perfection such that they felt as though they lived more in heaven than on earth. Thus, in the words of the Theological Commission of 1952, such a state of "triumphant sanctity" is not impossible for the mystical body of Christ. I'm sorry if you wish to argue with the papal Commission who summarized their findings in the document The Teachings of the Catholic Church. The onus is on you to discover then what they meant, not by some subjective exercise, but by taking the time to follow Apostolic Tradition in this matter, its historical development, theological development, prophetic foundations, and at last, place in mystical theology. No, this won't happen in a two minute blurb on a forum (though I've tried at least to kick-start the process).

Of this state of "triumphant sanctity", the late John Paul II wrote:

This eschatological dimension is contemplated by St. Louis Marie especially when he speaks of the "apostles of the latter times" formed by the Blessed Virgin to bring to the Church Christ's victory over the forces of evil. This is in no way a form of "millenarianism," but a deep sense of the eschatological character of the Church linked to the oneness and saving universality of Jesus Christ. The Church awaits the glorious coming of Jesus at the end of time. —POPE JOHN PAUL II, Letter to the Monfort Relgious Family, January 13th, 2004, www.vatican.va​

And thus, John Paul II said this is not an opportunity “to indulge in a new millenarianism”…

…with the the temptation to predict substantial changes in it in the life of society as a whole and of every individual. Human life will continue, people will continue to learn about successes and failures, moments of glory and stages of decay, and Christ our Lord always will, until the end of time, be the only source of salvation. —POPE JOHN PAUL II, National Conference of Bishops, January 29th, 1996; www.vatican.va​

​

The hump in these debates continually points back to a lack of understanding of what millenarianism is and what it isn't. There is an unfortunate continuing link of millenarianism here with the proper understanding of what the Church Fathers taught (see post above), what St. Hannibal, Venerable Conchita, Servant of God Maria Esperanza, Blessed Dina Bélanger, Servant of God Luisa Picarretta, St. Louis de Montfort, Fr. Gobbi, Vera Grita and other mystics have also spoken of. If millenarianism is, say, an olive tree, and modified or mitigated millenarianism is a pruned olive tree, what we are speaking of here is not an olive tree at all, but a mustard tree (Matt 13:30). The above quotes from the Pope explain that any notion of a "utopia" here on earth, some kind of "definitive state of salvation" is to be rejected. Yes, absolutely. On the other extreme, there is in fact an over-literal interpretation of what the popes and mystics of the past century have been prophesying regarding the era of peace precisely because it is divorced from Apostolic Tradition (hence, interpreting every statement of the "third millennium", "new Pentecost", "springtime" etc. as the state of Heaven). The "era of peace" requires careful theological development due to highly exaggerated and false catechesis among other things.

In another post, you state that I am referring to a literal thousand year reign. This is absolutely false, and does not help any such discussion when you make such factual errors. What I have written is:

Now… we understand that a period of one thousand years is indicated in symbolic language. —St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 81, The Fathers of the Church, Christian Heritage​

Aquinas wrote:

As Augustine says, the last age of the world corresponds to the last stage of a man’s life, which does not last for a fixed number of years as the other stages do, but lasts sometimes as long as the others together, and even longer. Wherefore the last age of the world cannot be assigned a fixed number of years or generations. —St. Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputate, Vol. II De Potentia, Q. 5, n.5; www.dhspriory.org​

​

Cardinal Jean Daniélou expounding upon the New Testament allusions to the era of peace in 1-2 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, and Revelation 20, stated:

It implies a period of time, the duration of which is unknown to men... —A History of Early Christian Doctrine, p. 377​

Thus, the "era of peace" could be a very short time. Maria Valtorta, for example, in her private diaries (I Quaderni del, which have not been adjudicated by the Church) speaks of the era of peace lasting only "forty years" or so. We can only speculate.

The essential point is that the era of peace is not some random historical blip, but is part of the Day of the Lord, part of the Holy Spirit's preparation of the Church to receive Jesus in glory at the end of time. See my post Wedding Preparations which highlights how the Jewish wedding customs reveal the theology of the "era of peace."

 

Mark, all those ideas are just modifications of the same theory, which is condemned by Catholic Church - there is not going to be separate future era of peace/millennium/whatever you name it before the Last Judgement - and this is reflected not only in the Councils decisions, Creed and CCC but in the writings of both Pope Benedict and Blessed JPII.

 

I understand that is your position (though the popes I just quoted above explain why it's not heresy). To suggest that the theological foundations of an era of peace are condemned by the Church, however, is patently false, since both the CDF and the Theological Commission of 1952 have issued statements saying that a "new era of Christian life" is open to debate. You can continue to side-step this, but I wonder why... As for the rest of what you've said above, it has also been equally demonstrated that your interpretation of these documents reads more into what is there and neglects Apostolic Tradition and the proper theological development of the patristics. No one is saying that you must accept an era of peace. But when the Church says that this can be openly debated, what is demanded then is a respect for 2000 years of Tradition that obviously leaves the door open. Furthermore, in order to hold your position, you also have to turn an absolute blind eye to the magisterially approved writings of mystics in our times that explicitly refer to an era of peace. I, personally, cannot "despise prophetic utterances" (1 Thess 5:20) in this regard.

So, at this point, we agree to disagree, as they say. Besides, much better minds than mine here have more than adequately answered your objections.

However, I am very curious as to how you explain the following papal statements and what they are referring to if not to what the Theological Commission called "…a hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things." (The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, London:Burns Oates & Washbourne, p. 1140)

1.

Empowered by the Spirit, and drawing upon faith’s rich vision, a new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished—not rejected, feared as a threat, and destroyed. A new age in which love is not greedy or self-seeking, but pure, faithful and genuinely free, open to others, respectful of their dignity, seeking their good, radiating joy and beauty. A new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy, and self-absorption which deaden our souls and poison our relationships. Dear young friends, the Lord is asking you to be prophets of this new age… —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Homily, World Youth Day, Sydney, Australia, July 20th, 2008​

​

2.

But even this night in the world shows clear signs of a dawn that will come, of a new day receiving the kiss of a new and more resplendent sun… A new resurrection of Jesus is necessary: a true resurrection, which admits no more lordship of death… In individuals, Christ must destroy the night of mortal sin with the dawn of grace regained. In families, the night of indifference and coolness must give way to the sun of love. In factories, in cities, in nations, in lands of misunderstanding and hatred the night must grow bright as the day, nox sicut dies illuminabitur, and strife will cease and there will be peace. —POPE PIUX XII, The Tablet, April 27th, 1957 as cited in Heralds of the Second Coming by Stephen Walford, p. 218-219​

3.

Oh! when in every city and village the law of the Lord is faithfully observed, when respect is shown for sacred things, when the Sacraments are frequented, and the ordinances of Christian life fulfilled, there will certainly be no more need for us to labor further to see all things restored in Christ… And then? Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion… All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith. —POPE PIUS X, E Supremi, Encyclical “On the Restoration of All Things”, n.14, 6-7​

 

I have provided the quotes quite to the contrary.
And from the same Popes, so did Stephen.

Mark, my job requires me to be able to read the research papers and differentiate which ones are valuables and which ones are not. So I am very aware of how the quotes can be twisted and taken out of the context. Just the time frame alone ( the quote from much earlier time being repeated ad nauseum, whereas much later ones, which support the different position are omitted) can be played constantly - which you do - but that does not mean nobody can see it.
Constant repeating Pope Benedict's quote from 1990 does not lead to persuasion that he did not modified his position later.

No it is not - it is the plain truth, which is substantiated by CCC, the text of the Creed, the text of the Gospels and by numerous Councils, with Nicaea to start with.
One does not even need to twist the quotes from the Popes if one has such army of arguments on his side

​

​

And what do you want me to explain here? A normal reference of the Holy Father to the new generation with a standard hope that they will be better than the previous. This quote is as far from post-millennnial expectations of yours or Fr. Ianuzzi as it can get.​

​

Again - what so special millennialistic here?​

​

I would say standard requests of the good Shepherd to the Sheep.​

I do not have time to search the web to see the CONTEXT of both phrases, but even taken out of context they do not stand out as the support of any special "new age" ​

 

I am not sure why you feel it necessary to attack another's integrity so as to solidify your position. I'm not sure what you're referring to either. But I would be happy to respond to any incongruence. My background is a television news producer and reporter, so accurate reporting, research etc. is important to me too.

Regarding the papal quotes above:

Why am I not surprised by this response? Nonetheless, go ahead, search the context and get back to us. For the popes are speaking here of something extraordinary: Benedict speaking of a "new age"; Pius XII envisioning a "new day"; Piux X speaking of essentially a "sabbath rest" when there is "no more need for us to labor further".... these, you say, are "standard requests"?? They are, in fact, unprecedented requests. John Paul II also recognized that what he was asking of the youth was extraordinary:

The young have shown themselves to be for Rome and for the Church a special gift of the Spirit of God… I did not hesitate to ask them to make a radical choice of faith and life and present them with a stupendous task: to become “morning watchmen” at the dawn of the new millennium. —POPE JOHN PAUL II, Novo Millennio Inuente, n.9​

​

Stephen and I have written entire books around such quotes saying that there is nothing "standard' about these words, but that they are in fact heralding the "end times" (though we disagree on how the "day of the Lord" unfolds). Yes, when the papal theologian for Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II says...

Yes, a miracle was promised at Fatima, the greatest miracle in the history of the world, second only to the Resurrection. And that miracle will be an era of peace which has never really been granted before to the world. —Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, October 9th, 1994, The Apostolate’s Family Catechism, p. 35​

...then we know that nothing is "standard" about our times.

What the popes above are speaking of lies in complete parallel to the theology of Apostolic Tradition of what the "new day" is to be. Welcome to the threshold of hope, insearch, we're about to cross it!

And yes! I love repeating quotes, particularly when they are ignored.

…[it is not against our Catholic Faith to] ...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. 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 Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, London:Burns Oates & Washbourne, p. 1140 from the Theological Commission of 1952 (a magisterial statement) ​

 

Our Lady of Fatima preferred to call it a 'period of peace' indicating a shorter period than an era.

'The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

This confirms to me that it will be this side of eternity. How could one just have a period of peace in heaven. And note it says will be granted to the world. It is a free gift to the world.

 

ON EXACTLY WHAT THE CHURCH HAS CONDEMNED

I want to make a general note here regarding Millenarianism in hopes that it will benefit at least some who are fearful of falling into heresy.

The Catechism says in 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​

I deliberately left the footnote references in because they are crucial in helping us understand what is meant by "millenarianism", and secondly "secular messianism" in the Catechism.

Footnote 577 is a reference to Denzinger-Schonnmetzer's Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Denzinger's work traces the development of doctrine and Dogma in the Catholic Church from its earliest times, and is obviously seen as a credible enough source for the Catechism to quote. The footnote to "millenarianism" leads us to Denzinger's work, which states:

...the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely. —DS 2269/3839, Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944​

Millenarianism, writes Leo J. Trese in The Faith Explained (with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) pertains to those who take Revelation 20:6 literally; those who "believe that Jesus will come to reign upon earth for a thousand years before the end of the world are called millenarists" (p. 154). Renowned Catholic theologian, Cardinal Jean Daniélou explains that, "Millenarianism, the belief that there will be an earthly reign of the Messiah before the end of time, is the Jewish-Christian doctrine which has aroused and continues to arouse more argument than any other." He adds, "The reason for this, however, is probably a failure to distinguish between the various elements of doctrine," which is what we are doing here (A History of Early Christian Doctrine, p. 377). So in summary, Millenarianism in its root form was the belief that Jesus would return in the flesh to earth and reign for a literal thousand years before the end of time, an error begun primarily by the Jewish converts.

There came from this heresy several offshoots such as carnal millenarians whom St. Augustine identified as those who believe 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.... They who believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may reproduce by the name of Millenarians..." (from De Civitate Dei, Book 10, Ch. 7). From this form of Millenarianism came the offshoots of modified, mitigated and spiritual Millenarianism under various sects whereby the carnal indulgences were excluded and yet some form of Christ returning to earth to reign and establish a definitive kingdom was still held. In all these forms, the Church has explicitly, once and for all, defined that this "system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely." The return of Jesus in glory and definitive establishment of the Kingdom will only occur at the end of time.

Footnote 578 brings us to the document Divini Redemptoris, Pope Pius XI's Encyclical against Atheistic Communism. This is extremely important and very pertinent to our times. While the millenarians held to some form of a utopian earthly-spiritual kingdom, secular messianists hold to a utopian political kingdom.

The Communism of today, more emphatically than similar movements in the past, conceals in itself a false messianic idea. —POPE PIUS XI, Divini Redemptoris, n. 8, www.vatican.va​

St. Augustine clarified that, were it not for the Chiliasts beliefs attached to the millenium, that in fact, a period of peace or "sabbath rest" is a valid interpretation of Revelation 20, which was what the Church Fathers taught and was confirmed again by the Church's Theological Commission in 1952.

…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… —St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.; Church Doctor), De Civitate Dei, Bk. XX, Ch. 7, Catholic University of America Press​

​

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. 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 Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, London:Burns Oates & Washbourne, p. 1140 from the Theological Commission of 1952; the above is a Magisterial statement. ​

It is precisely this definition of an "era of peace" that the Church has nowhere condemned in any document, and in fact, has affirmed that it is a certain possibility. That is, that Revelation 20 should not be interpreted as a literal return of Christ in the flesh for a literal thousand years.

...millenarianism is that thought which stems from a too literal, incorrect, and faulty interpretation of Chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation.... This can only be understood in a spiritual sense. —Catholic Encyclopedia Revised, Thomas Nelson, p. 387​

It is in this spiritual sense that the papal quotes above (a few posts ago) can be understood, which explicitly refer to the hope and expectation of a period of peace and justice in the temporal realm—the reign of the Kingdom of God in the Church extending over the world, subsequent upon the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments.

The Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, [is] destined to be spread among all men and all nations… —POPE PIUS XI, Quas Primas, Encyclical, n. 12, Dec. 11th, 1925; cf. Matt 24:14​

I hope this helps. Pax.

 

It is the integral position of modified millennialism and such position was condemned in 1944 by Catholic Church

No, there is nothing standard, beginning from the Pentecost - the new Era started then( ~30 A.D.) and is still lasting. Which does mean that the flock still needs the reminder of the good shepherd.
The End Times and the Millennium are TWO different things, so, please, do not lump those two together. Nobody is objecting that our times seem like End Times, but this absolutely does not prove that there is going to be a time of specific era of piece and triumph, when the devil will be restrained BEFORE the Last Judgement. This just means that we might be approaching the Second Coming of Christ and the last Judgement

This is NOT a Magisterial document ,it is a BOOK written by a priest and that where the quote is from
If that is a Magisterial document, how come we live in 2013 and CCC has NEVER been changed and it still states, that
that there will not be a historic triumph of the Church, but rather that the Church will only enter the kingdom of God through its final Passion (the persecution under the Antichrist) - which was foreseen in the Third Secret:

"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. 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. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world."

 

ONLY IF her request will be fulfilled and in order to spare the humanity the problems which come with the spread of the communist evils - it is a conditional help, not a given period.

It was not fulfilled as requested and we have the results, which are also not the best as well.

And the name era of peace used in the Fatima has nothing to do with the modified millenarian of nowadays reference to the invisible reign of Christ and the restraint of the devil before final unleashing him and Second Coming - nowhere in the Fatima requests is it referred as to such.

 

Aside from the insertion of the term to paint it as heresy again, this is your opinion purely, and an opinion that is presuming to speak for the Blessed Virgin Mary. It seem to lack humility on the surface.

Please describe (your opinion of) exactly what the "era of peace" is that she speaks of in this prophecy then (regardless of your opinion on whether the conditions have been or will be met according to her request).

For, prophecies such as "In the end, my Immaculate Heart with triumph....and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world" are not to be taken lightly. The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart must be something extremely significant and recognizable, within history. Pope Benedict XVI specifically called for this Triumph to be fullfilled and "hastened" during the years 2010-2017.

 

It is not my opinion only. Our Blessed Mother clearly states IN THE END my Immaculate Heart will triumph - how much clearer has it to be for you, Jon, that it will be AFTER the last Judgement? IN THE END !!!

some period of peace is CONDITIONAL and as such can not be even thought to be a definite prophecied era of peace - this is " apples and oranges" in the discussion.
to some degree we have had this era of peace for about 25 years - after the fall of the eastern bloc and dissolution of the ussr. One might ironically point - the validity of the consecration reflects the fullness of peaceful period.