Deficiencies with Amillennial suppositions


I thought I’d share this about a question a fellow Catholic asked:

**Other Catholic:*Someone still has my book on the Rapture (cough cough CD cough cough) and I am trying to figure out how to formulate a response to the following question.“If NOW is the Millennium, then what/when was the mark of the Beast? … and when did the Millennium START?”**As I understand it, the Millennium started after the Ascension of Christ. **The mark of the beast, I don’t think that is necessarily a literal mark but then again I’ve never been too clear what the symbol of it is…there’s alot of theories.**I was raised with the whole ‘rapture’ mindset and some of that bleeds over at times and confuses me.***Scott’s Reply: **

Unfortunately, <“name omitted”>, the real issue is that amill cannot fully address the question of the Millennium. You might check out my thread on “Mostly Wine but a little water” in the other forum, I believe.

Amill is mostly water, but a little wine. Chiliasm is pure wine. But Catholicism is neither of these. Catholicism is MOSTLY wine, but a little water. In that vein, chiliasm is actually CLOSER to the ultimate meaning of the Millennium than is amill. In the proper sense, it is absurd to say that the events of Revelation 12 are consummate with Revelation 20. How the hell can the dragon be chained in the abyss and at the same time be wreaking havoc on earth, with the flood, etc? But that’s what you get with amill. Amill says: we are laboring against sin (“take up your cross”) and, AT THE SAME TIME, resting (“for my burden is light…”) .

This again is because the Church has assumed for centuries that the parable of the wheat and the tares is the ultimate expression of apoc theology, whiuch it most likely is not. I think the point of the parable of the wheat and tares is not so much apocalyptic as it is an expression of he fact that there will be scandal in Christ’s Church.

… continued…


…continued from above…

I would rather suggest to you that the real and ultimate apocalyptic expressions of the mystery are the days of the creation and the beast. Toward that end, their picture sheds far more light on the matter: Amill is, there is light and darkness mixed together, gradually maturing toward the end. Hence, for them, the sky is black in the beginning and black at the end, with an ever maturing gray as the main brunt of history.

But the days of creation are not a continous gray. No, FIRST comes darkness (“evening came”), and THEN comes light (“and morning followed”), not “Well the sky is basically gray for most of Church history.”

And this is really the way that Salvation history has gone. Salvation history is not a continuous gray ever maturing. It is rather “BACK AND FORTH”. FIRST sin reigns (“evening came”), THEN it is redeemed (“and morning followed”). You don’t believe me? Simply look at it.

First the darkness of the Fall, which descends rather quickly into the near total wickedness of Noah’s day. But it is redeemed (the Flood).

Then the dark attempt at a materialistic dominion of Babel, but redeemed through the confounding of languages and the calling Abraham.

Then the darkness of Egyptian slavery follows, followed by the light of the Exodus and Promised Land.

Then the Jews gradually fall into apostasy, but they are chastised and restored by light to love of God through the exile and return to homeland.

then the OT Antichrist viciously persecutes them, followed by the ultimate light and the coming of the Messiah. Note, this is number five.

But no sooner does Christ come than the sun sets again in pagan persecution and resistance to conversion. But the sun rises gloriously with Catholic Christendom. And note this is day six.

And herein, Genesis connects. There are two stories of creation in Genesis. In one, God creates man on the SIXTH day, and in another , He creates them on the FIRST day. Not petty stuff here. For there is meaning with this. For in the SIXTH age of salvation history, God did indeed RE-create man in His Image by restoring him to grace by bringing multitudes of the Gentiles into the light of Christ, placing the sanctifying grace back into him, grace that he had lost with the fall.

And, yet, in another sense, even in the FIRST age of Salvation history, with the Flood, God was beginning to redeem man. Indeed, the Flood cleansed the earth of sin and began anew. And so, in another sense, God was already RE-creating man in his image starting on the first day.

Now back to where we were: Catholic Christendom of the Middle Ages was clearly only age SIX, but there are EIGHT days of Creation, not merely seven. For the seventh day is the OLD Sabbath, but the ultimate Sabbath is the eighth day, on which Christ Rose from the dead, and on which all the world will be resurrected at the New Creation.

So the problem with amill is that it allegorically explains away the Millennium and says that day SIX is the SAME DAY as SEVEN, because, evidently, we are BOTH working and resting. But the general mystics of fully approved Private Rev mostly do not agree with this pessimism. For they speak of an intermediate apostasy and tribulation to occur BEFORE the ones of the very end of the world, and that will be followed by a glorious Age of Peace, in which Christians will be reunited, the world RE-converted to the Catholic Church, and a period of great spiritual prosperity in which sin becomes significantly lessened, that is, like an IMPERFECT rest for God’s People.

… continued…


… continued…

Only after the age of peace will there occur the EIGHTH manifestation of sin in history, the GREAT apostasy and AC. And that shall be followed by the light of the Second Coming and aforementioned New Creation itself.

Hence, the real meaning of the Millennium is not only not chiliasm, but not amill either. The Millennium is rather the glorious age of peace that we are on the verge of, that is, after perhaps the Minor Chastisement, if humanity does not repent in time.

The Beast then can apply to our own day. I have an article of how to look at the Beast and False Prophet from a mystical sense if you interested.

Blessings to you, <“name omitted”>!


Thought I’d tack this in as addenduum to the days of creation thing above. A person from another forum commented:

[INDENT]*** said:


Interesting post. It immediately made me think about Christ falling with his cross and getting back up again as a pure example to us whom in our own daily lives how we continually fall, go to confession, fall, go to confession and so on.

I replied:

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. There are those mysterious threes all over the Gospels: Jesus falls three times, and in the third, he cannot raise himself again. Three times St. Peter denies him, and three times he is reconciled (“Peter, do you love me?”) Jesus speaks to Mary Magdelene three times at the Tomb, and only in third does she recognize him. Joseph and Mary look for Jesus for three days and three nights before they find him. Jesus prays three times to let the cup pass in the Garden of Geths., but in the third he is able to accept.

I find this interesting because the Catholic spirituality way of the saint has three stages: the purgative, the illuminative and the unitive. Only in the unitive does the saint finally be able to fully accept whatever God’s Will is. Also interesting that in the above analysis, both the Jews and the Church go through “3 days”, each with their proper parallels. In the first day, they go through the persecution of the “purgative” senses (Egypt, pagan Rome), but they are both delivered into a kingdom (Israel, Catholicism). and while in the kingdoms, there is indeed great “illumination” (the prophets, the doctrinal development of the Catholic Church). And in each case, the illumination is gradually resisted, culminating in a sort of darkn night of the soul, in which the respective Jew and Gentile are utterly oblivious to the word of God. But there is a chastisement in both cases (Babylon, our potential Minor Chas), leading to the vindication of the illumination and the restoration / “unitive” phase (Jewish return to Holy Land / the Reunion of Christians and great restoration of Catholic faith in world), which is followed by the ultimate sacrifice, martyrdom, under the associated Antichrists (in OT, Antiochus, in NT, the end of world AC), followed by the crossing of the threshold (with the saint, heaven, with the Jews, the first Coming of Christ, with the Church, the Second Coming of Christ).

So, I’m thinking, this may be precisely how the Jews come to recognize Christ in the “third day”. The RCC will say, don’t you see that this is deja vu for you? Everything YOU went through, we went through! (“Amen, Amen, I say to you, it will all be fulfilled…”). Mabye just a coincidence, but it is interesting. After three days and three nights, Mary and Joseph finally find Jesus in the Temple, and they ask him, “Son! Why have you done this to us. We have been searching for you in sorrow these three days?” And Jesus will say, “Well, duuuh?! What were you thinking? Did you know that I must be about my Father’s business? [Redeeming the Gentiles in three ages just as I redeemed you in your three ages]?”

Hence, with Mary Magdelene,

Jesus asks a first time, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord and I do not know where they have laid him.” Again, in the days of the Early Church, amidst dispersion, the Jews are lost. They say to themselves, “The Messiah was supposed to come. But he didn’t. I do not know where he is.”

Jesus asks a second time, "Woman, why are you crying?"
This time, she still doesn’t recognize Jesus, but she suspects that this man may be able to help her, “Sir, if YOU know where they have taken him, then please tell me in order that I may go and annoint him.” So then, even now, as the catastrophes mount, the Jews still do not recognize their Messiah, but they at least many times hold the holier of Christians in esteem, and, as Birch points out, even though it will not be the “fullness of the Jews” of the very end, nevertheless, he indicated many mystics forsee some Jews converting in the aftermath of the minor tribulation.

But, finally, a third time, Jesus speaks, “Mary!” And her eyes are opened! Hence, in the final trial, when the Gentiles are radically and irrevocably departing from the Gospel in the times of Antichrist, the Church shall say, “Don’t you get it? This is the parallell of the third and final age that YOU went through.” So then, the Jews can see it! Yes, everything we went through, the Gentiles did! That’s it. Our Messiah has indeed been “about his Father’s Business” for three ages, and only now in the last one do we find him!

Just some things I’ve been thinking about.

Thank you for your comments, .

In Her Love,


I’ve become familiar (these past few months) with what mystics of fully approved Private Revelation have said, spauline. An excellent book on the topic, which I’ve just read, is Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph: Before, During, and After Antichrist, by Desmond Birch. He builds a very convincing case for the Chastisement and the age of peace following it.


Oh, yes, I have the book! It’s great. What I’m doing is simply saying, given Birch’s analysis from tons of (fully approved) Private Rev, how could these ages of Church history not somehow be veiled in PUBLIC Rev. I mean, the idea of the world falling away from the Gospel and coming back massively, how could such a wonderful spiritual epoch, as well as the whole of salvation history, not somehow be prefigured in the Public Tradition?

Blessings to you, colmywaykurtz!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit