What do you think of this Catholic End Times Chart?

33 A.D. - 312 A.D. = time when Christ binds Satan and Saints come to life to rule and reign with Him.

~300 A.D. - ~ 1300 A.D. = 1,000 year reign of Christendom (Rev. 20)

~ 1300 A.D. = release of Satan (beginning of “Renaissance”)

1517 A.D. = Great Falling Away (2 Thes. 2:3)

I think it’s very Eurocentric.

Almost all of Asia and Africa fell away in the 5th century when they embraced the Nestorian and monophysite heresies.

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?

As scripturally the “end” cannot be predicted, it follows that it cannot be timelined, either.

We should save neuronal strength for working off our Purgatory, IMINWHO.

ICXC NIKA

"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.

I think…NOT MUCH. Pri arily as VICO has stated…

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”. :slight_smile:

All of the above.
Why do you keep trying to fit a protestant worldview into Catholicism?

If you were to add :

1914 = The beginning of the last days of the world,

your chart would be almost complete. Perhaps 1936 or 1939 should be added as the coming to power of the anti-Christ, A.H.

So…are you saying Anglicans believe the identity of he anti-Christ is commonly known?

I think it is very “uncatholic”. Seriously. Bad stuff. Run fast, very fast, away from whatever source you used to find this balderdash.

I may be wrong, but isnt the things the antichrist will do and when sort of timelined in the bible?

No. There is talk about corrupt people and teachings, yes.

NO!

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? :smiley:

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!”. :smiley:

As I’ve said before, I can “predict” the end of the world from a phone book if I had enough time and was crazy enough.

All these “systems”, be they Catholic, Adventist, Watchtower, Mormon, whatever have one thing in common: wrong.

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.