This chart suggests that Satan had been chained up for the 1000 years from about 300 to 1300CE.
This seems difficult to support.
Isn’t the restraint of Satan supposed to be an unusually peaceful, utopian period in history?
Indeed, can you point to period in history when Satan* has* been restrained?
"The Catholic Church specifically condemns “millenarianism,” according to which Jesus will establish a throne in this world and reign here for a thousand years [CCC 676]." ewtn.com/expert/answers/endtimes.htm
The Book of Revelation gives the time between the first and second comings as between the Roman persecutions of the first century until the final unleashing of evil at the end, which is the era of the Church. The 1000 years means an indefinite long time.
Interesting, but like the “Bible codes”, the problem is that once you have a pre-defined hermeneutic template, you can always fit it over the facts in the way that you like.
For example, there is nothing implausible about a 1,000 year reign, either in your scheme, or (say) being c. 476 (fall of the Roman Empire) to 1517 (the Reformation, which I agree was a catastrophe and a Great Falling Away). However, you then have to fit things like the East/West schism and “Babylonian Captivity” / Avignon Papacy into your millennium, which sort of ruins the calculation.
Plus, you have to fit the chronologies of books such as Daniel into this scheme, which ruins it further.
The bottom line is that it’s complicated, and that many have come to grief trying to “know times and seasons that the Father has foreordained”.
I suppose it is a bit Eurocentric. Then again, we are “Roman” Catholics.
The more common teaching of the Church these days is that the binding of Satan refers to the entire period between Christ’s first and second coming (as the comment quoted below indicates). So the “binding” here does not need to be entire and complete. In fact, that sort of conception of the Millennium is explicitly condemned by the Church. As noted, also, in the comment below.
Yes, the Church condemns the idea that there will, at some point in the future, be a literal earthly reign of Christ, in which He will usher in paradise on earth for 1,000 years. But that is not what I am arguing for.
In fact, your idea that the 1,000 years refers to the time between the first and second comings is almost identical to my own conception as it referring to the time between the beginning of Christendom and the cleaving of it.
You do not find it interesting that the period of time between the rise of the Christian empire and its downfall into secularization was almost exactly 1,000 years?
I think in the eyes of Christ the East-West schism was not so much a “Great Falling Away” because the East still retained valid Holy Orders and Sacraments, and most the core Catholic doctrines concerning God and salvation.
Think about when St. Peter (The Roman Church) is told that he will be dragged into martyrdom. He looks back at St. John (the eastern church) and asks Jesus if he would have to suffer the same way. Jesus tells St. Peter (The Roman Church) not to worry about St. John (the eastern church), and that Jesus would preserve him until the end.
But the Protestant revolution/rebellion was truly a falling away. The Sacraments denied. Holy Orders lost. Books removed from the Bible. Justification reduced to “faith alone” without any requirement to love and obey God. Each individual exalted to the place of their own personal Pope and Council. Thousands of sects arise. Secularism spreads. Atheism flowers. The Pope called antichrist. Millions led astray and lost in confusion. Etc.
I say that 1517 is the beginning of the Great Falling Away and you say I am being too Protestant?
What I am saying is that the “end times” are the same for every person on earth. It happens when it happens and speculating or labeling it adds nothing to our destination. Either way.
Catholics don’t tend to speculate on this and are in fact, encouraged not to.
As my boss, a priest says “Jesus is coming back. Look busy!”.