The Millennium


#1

Could someone tell me why the Church has rejected the idea that after the Second Coming and Judgement of believers Christ wil rule the World from Jerusalem for a thoudsand years and then comes Judgement for sinners? I see no reason why this would be out of the question.


#2

Because the Church is the New Jerusalem. It was established by Christ as His kingdom. Christ said that He did not have an earthly kingship, so a reign from an earthly city would not make a whole lot of sense. As for the 1000 years…I don’t know if it is forbidden to believe that, but the Church does not teach it definitively because it is likely a symbolic reference to timelessness “with the Lord a day is like 1000 years”.


#3

It’s not that the Church has “rejected” this belief. Millenarianism has simply never been a part of the deposit of Faith or Catholic doctrine; it is a recent invention of other sects within the past few centuries.

JimG


#4

Because it’s not Biblical


#5

Isn’t New Jerusalem a real city that will one day come down from heaven if its not why all the decriptions about its charectistics (streets made of gold foundation of various stones with the name of the Apostles inscribed on them wall of Jasper 1500 miles long wide and high ect) in Revelation, and how can Satan be bound now when there is so much evil in the world so its pretty obvious he’s running loose not bound up somewhere. I was taught the Early Church did look forward to the Millennium but after Augustine came up with Amillennialism that changed is this not true?


#6

[quote=starrs0]Could someone tell me why the Church has rejected the idea that after the Second Coming and Judgement of believers Christ wil rule the World from Jerusalem for a thoudsand years and then comes Judgement for sinners? I see no reason why this would be out of the question.
[/quote]

Hello, starrs.
The general reason why chiliasm (the doctrine you have expounded above) is to be rejected is because it conflicts with the Creed of the Catholic Church. Specifically, the Creed states, “from thence, He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” Hence, Christ’s Second Coming is the DEFINITIVE and FINAL conquering of evil, where the General Judgement and Resurrection of both the JUST and the UNJUST takes place. That is, there cannot be TWO Resurrections, one first of the just, followed by a literal, thousand-year reign of Christ, and then a SECOND Resurrection of the damned, who will “attack the holy city.” Indeed, once an unjust person dies, his sentence is permanent. He will not ever come back to have a chance to do more evil on earth. His soul goes to Hell and the torments already begin. Only, at the end of time, at Christ’s Second Coming, his deeds will be made public before the whole human race and receive his body back to be tortured along with his soul for all eternity.

Granted, Augustine saw the Millennium as a symbol of the entire period of time between the First and Second Comings, where the world is being renewed by Christ through the Catholic Church. However, there is an additional meaning that can yet be held by a Catholic, and that is to see this Millennium as the “Age of Peace” predicted by the Catholic mystics. Here, as expounded by Desmond Birch’s twenty-year research of Catholic Private Revelation, it seems that our godless age has been anticipated in much of the Revelation, but the prophecies indicate that it is NOT THE END OF THE WORLD! Rather, the world will, with or without a chastisement, convert back to the RCC, and a lengthly period of Peace will be granted the world, where the CAtholic Church will reign supreme with “one flock, one shepherd.” Only after this period dissolves (through laxity) will the GREAT apostasy and antichrist come, followed by the Parousia.

[see next thread for continuation]


#7

[quote=starrs0]Could someone tell me why the Church has rejected the idea that after the Second Coming and Judgement of believers Christ wil rule the World from Jerusalem for a thoudsand years and then comes Judgement for sinners? I see no reason why this would be out of the question.
[/quote]

Hello, starrs.

The general reason why chiliasm (the doctrine you have expounded above) is to be rejected is because it conflicts with the Creed of the Catholic Church. Specifically, the Creed states, “from thence, He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” Hence, Christ’s Second Coming is the DEFINITIVE and FINAL conquering of evil, where the General Judgement and Resurrection of both the JUST and the UNJUST takes place. That is, there cannot be TWO Resurrections, one first of the just, followed by a literal, thousand-year reign of Christ, and then a SECOND Resurrection of the damned, who will “attack the holy city.” Indeed, once an unjust person dies, his sentence is permanent. He will not ever come back to have a chance to do more evil on earth. His soul goes to Hell and the torments already begin. Only, at the end of time, at Christ’s Second Coming, his deeds will be made public before the whole human race and receive his body back to be tortured along with his soul for all eternity.

Granted, Augustine saw the Millennium as a symbol of the entire period of time between the First and Second Comings, where the world is being renewed by Christ through the Catholic Church. However, there is an additional meaning that can yet be held by a Catholic, and that is to see this Millennium as the “Age of Peace” predicted by the Catholic mystics. Here, as expounded by Desmond Birch’s twenty-year research of Catholic Private Revelation, it seems that our godless age has been anticipated in much of the Revelation, but the prophecies indicate that it is NOT THE END OF THE WORLD! Rather, the world will, with or without a chastisement, convert back to the RCC, and a lengthly period of Peace will be granted the world, where the CAtholic Church will reign supreme with “one flock, one shepherd.” Only after this period dissolves (through laxity) will the GREAT apostasy and antichrist come, followed by the Parousia.

[continued on next post, please see next post…]


#8

[continued from above…]

Further, we can argue for this PostMillennial view of history (i.e., there will be TWO apostasies in history, our current one, and the great one at the end of time, and between these two apostasies will be a golden Age of Peace where the RCC will reign supreme in the world, or at least much of it) by arguing that the history of the Old Covenant is foreshadowing the New Covenant. When we consider the Jewish People, begun with Abraham, we can surmise that the their history will be indicative of the New Covenant as well. Then, we can argue a parallel. In the beginning, God calls Abraham and establishes the beginnings of His People. Similarly, Christ comes and establishes His Church. Then, shortly after the Covenant with Abraham, the Hebrews are enslaved by Egypt. Similarly, shortly after the founding of the Church, She is severely persecuted by the pagans (especially Rome). Then, just as God delivers His People in the Exodus, similarly with Constantine, His New People are delivered from the hands of the Romans and gain their own freedom, eventually in Christendom. Then, in Israel, after some time, through laxity and sin, the People stray from the Covenant. God sends the Prophets to warn them to convert back or face chastisement. Similarly, after a while in Christendom, many in the Church begin to take their gifts for granted and fall into sin and laxity. As a result, the Western World departs from her Catholic and then Christian roots. Similarly also, God keeps the remnant in the Church to warn the world that it will face disaster if it continues in its godless living. Also pertinent are the warnings of Private Revelation, especially Our Lady. Then, the Jews do not heed the Prophets and so comes the Chastisement, the Babylonian Exile. But the Chastisement is a MERCIFUL act of God, for it turns the hearts of the Jews back to their God. Similarly, an option faces our current godless age: if the world will listen to the voice of the Church that warns them of impending disaster if they do not return to God, then peace can be achieved and the world can once again return to God’s favor. On the other hand, if the world does not repent in time, just as with the Jews, God will send a chastisement (like Babylon). But just as the Babylonian exile converted Israel back to God, so, if the Minor Chastisement comes, the world will be converted back to the Church, but in this case, the conversion will not need to be followed by pagan occupation, as with the Jews, for the whole Western World will be the Kingdom under the Church, the Universal Kingdom. In this way, there will be veritably an Age of Peace.
One more parallel that I forgot to add when discussing how I believe the Old Covenant History foreshadows New Covenant history. After the conversion of the Jews in the exile, they then faced the final long trial of pagan occupation until the salvation of Christ’s FIRST coming. Similarly, after an extended peace in the Age of Peace, the Church will endure the final trial, the mass apostasy and Antichrist, then followed by the SECOND coming of Christ. Hence, in both cases, the eras are closed by a coming of Christ: the Old Covenant concludes with the FIRST coming of Christ, and the New Covenant finds its ultimate conclusion and fulfillment in the SECOND Coming of Christ.

For more information on how I argue for POSTmillennialism, see my website:

http://www.spauline.net/apocalypse/index.htm

God bless you, Starrs.

Scott Pauline


#9

[quote=JimG]It’s not that the Church has “rejected” this belief. Millenarianism has simply never been a part of the deposit of Faith or Catholic doctrine; it is a recent invention of other sects within the past few centuries.

JimG
[/quote]

How recent are the early church fathers? ECFs like Ambrosiaster, Commodianus, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Methodius, Nepos, Papias, and Victorinus all arguably held to a millenial eschatology. In fact, in the extent writings of the first two centuries of the NT era one would be hard pressed to find any church father who did not hold to a millenial eschatology.

Brian


#10

[quote=brianberean]How recent are the early church fathers? ECFs like Ambrosiaster, Commodianus, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Methodius, Nepos, Papias, and Victorinus all arguably held to a millenial eschatology. In fact, in the extent writings of the first two centuries of the NT era one would be hard pressed to find any church father who did not hold to a millenial eschatology.

Brian
[/quote]

This is a good point. Some early Fathers were chiliasts, which later came to be condemned by the Church. However, even one of the Fathers (was it Justin Martyr?) said that there were other orthodox Catholics who did not agree with him. Hence, also, we know that other Fathers rejected chiliasm. Acutally, this is why i argue that the truth is somewhere in the middle of these two positions, i.e., POSTMillennnialism.

To see how i argue well for this position, see my website and posts above:

spauline.net/apocalypse/index.htm

God Bless you,
Scott


#11

[quote=spauline]To see how i argue well for this position, see my website and posts above:

spauline.net/apocalypse/index.htm

God Bless you,
Scott
[/quote]

Sorry but eschatology gives me a headache. pretrib, midtrib, posttrib, premill, postmill, amill, preterism, partial preterism…augh! :confused:

Come soon Lord.

Brian


#12

[quote=starrs0]Could someone tell me why the Church has rejected the idea that after the Second Coming and Judgement of believers Christ wil rule the World from Jerusalem for a thoudsand years and then comes Judgement for sinners? I see no reason why this would be out of the question.
[/quote]

Can you explain to me what you think could possibly be the point of Jesus reigning on earth for a thousand years - and then having the world come to an end? This is something that has always puzzled me. People who beleive in the thousand year reign don’t ever seem to have any pausible reason for why Jesus would want a year reign on earth for this thousand year period. Will death still be taking peoples lives in Jesus’ thousand-year reign, or is everyone going to be immortal for a thousand years? If there is death in the millennial reign of Jesus, why would Jesus allow his enemy death to have control over his subjects? What kind of reign is that where Jesus is the Lord, but his enemy death destroys his subjects? Will there be old age and disease in this earthly kingdom where Jesus reigns? If not, why do people have to wait for a thousand years with an immortal body before they get their new immortal bodies?

There are those that believe that the Christians will be yanked off the earth before the millennial reign begins. The only people that would be left for Jesus to reign over would be those who have either rejected Jesus or have never heard of Jesus. Is Jesus going to have to found a new Church to begin evangelizing those in the world that have never heard the Gospel? Or is it going to be as some Christians say; that the whole world will have heard the Gospel preached before the rapture of the Christians. In that case, Jesus would be reigning entirely over people that have rejected him. What is the purpose of Jesus reigning over people that have rejected him before he condemns them all to Hell? :confused:


#13

[quote=brianberean]Sorry but eschatology gives me a headache. pretrib, midtrib, posttrib, premill, postmill, amill, preterism, partial preterism…augh! :confused:

Come soon Lord.

Brian
[/quote]

Well, it shouldn’t give you a headache. besides, it’s interesting to speculate, I think it’s one of the most interesting theologies. Really, if you get a chance, read the articles.

God Bless,
Scott
:slight_smile:


#14

Matt16_18: It has to do with the promises to Israel being completely fulfilled, and in some versions of it, a means of Christians receiving their rewards for service of Christ is this life (ruling with Him over the peoples of the Millenium…who would be the nations that come out of the Tribulation…the sheep). This is the time period that Christ would be ruling the nations with an iron sceptre.


#15

Could someone tell me why the Church has rejected the idea that after the Second Coming and Judgement of believers Christ wil rule the World from Jerusalem for a thoudsand years and then comes Judgement for sinners? I see no reason why this would be out of the question.

This is rather a conflicting idea or theology about Christ second coming. How can Christ come and “judge” and then “reign” for a thousand years with the believers? What’s that reigning for a thousand years with the believers has to do with what is said in the Bible as “His glorious coming?” It’s simply that the judgement of the living and the dead will be the fulfillment and beginning of our living with God for eternity after the judgement, not the other way around.

For the glorious coming of Christ will be manifested at his second coming and the final defeat of the Evil one. It’s not a “transitional” stage for his another coming that adherents to the “thousand-year reign theology” has invented as something Scriptural. It’s simply that they misinterpret Scriptures. For the angels dressed in white garments who appeared with the apostles after Christ’s assencion into heaven has affirmed this-- that this same Christ who ascended into heaven will also come in the same manner as when he ascended to heaven (Acts 1:11).

Pio


#16

[quote=twf]Matt16_18: It has to do with the promises to Israel being completely fulfilled, and in some versions of it, a means of Christians receiving their rewards for service of Christ is this life (ruling with Him over the peoples of the Millenium…who would be the nations that come out of the Tribulation…the sheep). This is the time period that Christ would be ruling the nations with an iron sceptre.
[/quote]

Right. And none of that makes any sense.


#17

My view is exactly the opposite to Scott Pauline’s. Postmillennialism seems pretty clearly to coincide with the “millenialism” condemned explicitly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I also think it’s the most destructive eschatological view morally because it leads to a triumphalist expectation that the Church will triumph within history, which is contrary to Scripture and (as I said) to the Catechism.

Premillenialism, on the other hand, is not addressed by the Catechism, and I can’t see that it is condemned anywhere by the Catholic Church. It would be hard to condemn a view almost universally held by the Fathers of the first three centuries of the Church. The peculiarly modern “dispensationalist” form of premillenialism, especially its pre-trib form with two Second Comings, is out of sync with the Church’s teaching (and has disturbing moral and theological implications, even if it’s at least somewhat less corrupting than post-millenialism), though I’m not sure even it is officially condemned. But I don’t see that the Creed explicitly says that the resurrection of the dead has to occur all at one time, especially when Scripture explicitly says “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.”

I don’t have a strong preference between amillennialism (understood in such a way as not to identify the present age too closely with the Kingdom of Christ) and non-dispensational premillenialism. And it also seems to me that these are the two most legitimate options for Catholics, although I grant that amillenialism has dominated for most of the history of the Church.

In Christ,

Edwin


#18

[quote=Contarini]My view is exactly the opposite to Scott Pauline’s. Postmillennialism seems pretty clearly to coincide with the “millenialism” condemned explicitly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I also think it’s the most destructive eschatological view morally because it leads to a triumphalist expectation that the Church will triumph within history, which is contrary to Scripture and (as I said) to the Catechism.

Premillenialism, on the other hand, is not addressed by the Catechism, and I can’t see that it is condemned anywhere by the Catholic Church. It would be hard to condemn a view almost universally held by the Fathers of the first three centuries of the Church. The peculiarly modern “dispensationalist” form of premillenialism, especially its pre-trib form with two Second Comings, is out of sync with the Church’s teaching (and has disturbing moral and theological implications, even if it’s at least somewhat less corrupting than post-millenialism), though I’m not sure even it is officially condemned. But I don’t see that the Creed explicitly says that the resurrection of the dead has to occur all at one time, especially when Scripture explicitly says “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.”

I don’t have a strong preference between amillennialism (understood in such a way as not to identify the present age too closely with the Kingdom of Christ) and non-dispensational premillenialism. And it also seems to me that these are the two most legitimate options for Catholics, although I grant that amillenialism has dominated for most of the history of the Church.

In Christ,

Edwin
[/quote]

Dear Edwin,

thank you for your response. I must tell you that you have it partially wrong. The “millennialism” condemned in the Catechism is in fact PRE-MILLENNIALISM, or chiliasm. It is Postmillennialism that the Church has not yet fully ruled out. Research this if you do not believe me. for example, Fr. Echert, the EWTN Q&A Scripture and Divine Rev expert confirms this:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=287907&Forums=7&Experts=29&Days=3000&Author=Scott+Pauline&Keyword=Millenn&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

but you are right that the Church has tended more towards amill. I, however, firmly believe that the Church will end up endorsing Postmill (not to the exclusion of amill, but in addition to it) in the end.

Thanks,
Scott


#19

oh, I have one more correction to the analogy of New Covenant History being prefigured in Old Testament history. Going back to the intermediate trial of both histories, that is, Israel’s apostasy and the Western World’s minor apostasy, we saw that in each case, there is a conditional chastisement followed by a renewal and conversion. Here is the correction I would like to make, specifically on the FINAL Trial for each. Here, after the Jews reconversion and return to the Holy Land, they then face, a few centuries later, the final trial of the OLD Testament ANTICHRIST, Antiochus IV Epiphanies, which is heavily treated in the Old Testament, both in Daniel prophetically, and in 1 and 2 Maccabees. After this trial, there is the century and a half or so of the LIMBO, where the Jews await the FIRST Coming of Christ.

Similarly, after the conditional chastisement to come and the Western World’s reconversion to Catholicism, after they return to the “Holy Land” of Grace and the “Age of Peace,” the Church faces the NEW Testament ANTICHRIST. Here, interestingly enough, Private Revelation gives a further parallel, in that it is St. Michael the Archangel who kills Antichrist, not Christ, and after Antichrist’s death, there is likewise a short LIMBO of time for the world to repent before Christ Comes the SECOND Time.

just thought i’d add that further tidbit.


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