1000 year reign literal?

[Ron_Conte]

My opinion is that the Book of Revelation describes the tribulation, which is in the future. The tribulation is divided into two parts. One part for our generation, beginning in a few years, and the other part for the distant future.

The Antichrist is of the second part of the tribulation. His reign is the last ‘week of years’ in Daniel 9. After which Christ returns to bring about his end (2 Thess 2:8).

But I don’t think Christ has a literal reign on earth after He returns, but that He establishes his kingdom on earth, then ascends to Heaven, after which He sends out the Spirit in a Second Pentecost. Then the ‘thousand years’ occurs, which is a long time of over a thousand years of peace and holiness on earth, where Christ has a spiritual reign over all the earth through His Church and the Sacraments.

I think that the first resurrection is a literal resurrection of the martyrs and saints occurring after Christ’s return and before His Second Ascension.

My view on this is similar to that of Fr. Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests. Fr. Roux of the MMP cites this on the point of two returns of Christ:

Especially significant are the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in this regard. Theologian Martino Penasa, presented him with this question of Christ’s spiritual millenary reign (not millenarianism), and the Cardinal reassured him that the matter is still open to discussion and that “the Holy See has not yet made any definite pronouncement in this regard.”; (“È imminente una nuova era di vita cristiana?”; Il Segno del Soprannaturale, Udine, Italia, n. 30, p. 10, Oct. 1990; The Triumph of God’s Kingdom…, Fr. Iannuzzi, p. 43)

However, I realize that my view on this is speculative, and is contrary to what Augustine and Aquinas taught on the meaning of Rev. 19.

Ron

 

[trth_skr]

Robert Sungenis is printing his second book in his Study Bible series- this one on Revelations. My understanding is it is a verse by verse interpertation of the book. I will be interested in seeing what his take will be.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[spauline]

Can this be explained without adhering to the preterist position. That position never really convinced me. Moreover, as Jaypeeto3 states, several Church fathers believed in a literal millenium. I believe that it was by the fourth century that the symbolic interpretation began to dominate.

I definitely believe that the Millennium can be explained in a manner better than preterism. In short, one very overlooked approach to the apoc that is acceptable in Catholicism is SPIRITUAL HISTORICISM. In this view, there is a hell of a better explanatin of the Millennium than just liberal preterism.

In this view, as per “countless” fully approved mystics, there will be a DRESS-REHEARSAL for the end of the world, in the sense that a significant (although Minor compared to the end of the world) apostasy and conditional tribulation will occur before the very end of time, after which Christians will be reunited in the RCC for a great restoration of Catholicism in the world, otherwise known as the “Age of Peace” (hint, hint, Fatima is just one of tons of such fully approved apparations that prophesies of this). Only after the Age of Peace does come the GREAT apostasy, Antichrist and Second Coming.

In this context, the beast is not simply the Antichrist in all circumstances, for in Reve. 19., it can simply be an image of the Minor apostasy (and by derivate, the whole of the sinful resistance to God’s Plan up until then) that is defeated by the restoration of faith. Its defeat then also represents the “fullness” of Christ’s redemption of humanity WITHIN human history. IOW it is a symbol of the fullness of the Gentiles , the fulfillment of the imperfect, seventh-day sabbath. The Millennium is then the Age of Peace, where there will literally be a widespread “sabbath-like” rest from the sin of history (not in an absolute and perfect sense, but in a general sense ).

But the ultimate sabbath is day EIGHT, when Christ returns and there is the PERMANENT and eternal rest of the Resurrection and New Creation.

Hence, the release of the dragon in Rev. 20 is then more accurately the symbol of the GREAT apostasy,the FINAL manifestation of sin in human history that can no longer be cured, and so then is when we have the coming of the big guy Antichrist. Note, IOW, that the beast is multilayered. Anytime there is major and near total sin in human history, the “beast and false prophet” are present, at least metaphorically anyway.

 

[copland]

St. Augustine gives the best explanation on the 1000 year reign, I recommend reading chapters 20-21 of the City of God by him. Here is portion. conventhill.com/endtimes/aug9.htm

 

[spauline]

St. Augustine gives the best explanation on the 1000 year reign, I recommend reading chapters 20-21 of the City of God by him. Here is portion. conventhill.com/endtimes/aug9.htm

dear copland,

Actually, I didn’t mean to say that Augustine’s take on the Millennium is wrong in any sense, only that I don’t believe it is the best interpretation possible. For example, amill is pretty much a fully LEFT minded view, chiliasm being fully RIGHT minded. Usually, the Church takes a position that is somewhere between the CENTER and the full RIGHT on alot of controversial issues. That is why amill is not typically Catholic.

The view that I espouse is more “Catholic” in that it is, again, somewhere between the center and the full right.

 

[spauline]

IOW, what I meant was, many layers of meaning can be possible with one text, so I think Augustine’s solution is very good in its own right, but I don’t think we need to say that Aug’s view is the ONLY one intended by God. I think other layers of meaning could be there. Scripture is multilayered.

 

[Fidelis]

In this view, as per “countless” fully approved mystics, there will be a DRESS-REHEARSAL for the end of the world…

May I trouble you to provide a short list of these "“countless approved mystics” who have described this period in the terms you have described? Thanks.

 

[spauline]

May I trouble you to provide a short list of these "“countless approved mystics” who have described this period in the terms you have described? Thanks.

These were the words of one of EWTN’s very own priests. I’ll have to dig up the quote. But for the general reference, see this article by Colin Donovan, an EWTN expert:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/endtimes.htm

**Approved Catholic mystics (Venerables, Blessed and Saints, approved apparitions) **throw considerable light on this order, by prophesying a minor apostasy and tribulation toward the end of the world, after which will occur the reunion of Christians. Only later will the entire world fall away from Christ (the great apostasy) and the personal Antichrist arise and the Tribulation of the End occur.

I will get the info from Desmond Birch’s book that only skims the surface on this topic and yet is like a 500 page volume, the fruit of some 23 years of research

 

[spauline]

also, in Desmond Birch’s 23-year work, Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph, he cites several mystics in regards to the Age of Peace:

St. Ephraem
St. Francis of Paula
Sr. Mechtilde of Helfta
St. Vincent Ferrer
Sr. Bertina Bequillon

On the Great Council in the Age of Peace:
Holzhauser
Jeanne de Royer - Sister Nativitas Clarissin of Fourgeres
Ecstatic of Tours
Ven. Holzhauser

I don’t have time to post all the citations right now.

I’m sorry, I should have been more clear: the Minor Chastisement does not have to come, BUT, he emphatically points out that one thing that is ABSOLUTELY clear from the APPROVED prophecies is that there is at least ONE great era of peace and spiritual prosperity between our current time and the times of the very end, whether or not any chastisement(s) come (before the times of very end, i.e., great apostasy)

As for the indications of the minor apostasy and conditional chastisement, the cited sources in Birch’s volume are quite numerous to list at that point. And I believe that, further, in bringing those sources, Birch has just selected the most important ones. I’ll have to check, but I’m almost certain he said somewhere that his cited sources in the Book are just skimming the surface.

Admittedly, we needn’t believe any Private Revelation, but, on the other hand, do we just completely ignore it, as if it’s completely irrelevant? Moreover, I see many of these things in Scripture just in my personal meditation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I disagree that the ‘minor chastisement’ is conditional. The events of that time, which I call the first part of the tribulation, are described in the book of revelation and so cannot fail to occur.

Also, this first part of the tribulation is lesser, but it is still very severe. I would not call it ‘minor’.

Ron

 

[Fidelis]

These were the words of one of EWTN’s very own priests. I’ll have to dig up the quote. But for the general reference, see this article by Colin Donovan, an EWTN expert:

Thank you. You may want to temper future responses on this topic by ommiting the quantifier “countless mystics,” as Donovan nowhere implies this in his answer.

 

[Fidelis]

Admittedly, we needn’t believe any Private Revelation, but, on the other hand, do we just completely ignore it, as if it’s completely irrelevant?

This is one of the big problems I have with my fellow Catholics (not you, specifically, but in general) speculating on private revelations. On the one hand they’ll say “Of course it is not official Church doctrine” – and then they give the impression that you’re stupid or foolish if you don’t give it any weight at all, which as Catholics, we are free to do without guilt or damage to our salvation or sanctification.

 

[frnate]

How does the Catholic Church explain the 1000 year reign in the Book of Revelation. I know that the Church says it’s symbolic, but when you read it within the context of the visions, it seems that the 1000 years come right after the beast and the false prophet and that the Christians martyred for not accepting the mark of the Beast come back to life in a “First Resurection” and reign with Christ. How can this synbolize the Church when the millenium seems to take place after the comong of the Antichrist?

Thanks

I don’t think the Church has a definitive teaching regarding this but…
The answer to your question hinges on whether or not apocolyptic literature is literal, figurative or some combination of the two.

The strongest case, (imho) is that it is completely figurative. I also think most rational people can agree that poetry is usually about as far from literal as you can get. Thus the 1000 years is no more literal than the 1000 hills in Ps. 50:10.

My :twocents:

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[VL93]

I’m not sure if this will help or further confuse matters … but here - from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada - Orthodox Christian Beliefs and Practices - is an Orthodox perspective on the 1000 years:

CHILIASM: Chiliasm, from the Greek word meaning “1000,” is a belief based on Revelation 20:2-7. In its classical form (which interprets the Revelation 20 verses verbatim), Chiliasm teaches that Satan will be bound by Christ for 1000 years, at which time Jesus and the Saints will reign on earth, and after which, Satan will be finally defeated and the Eternal Kingdom of God will be inaugurated. In modern times, Chiliasm has been “boiled down” to the teaching that the world will end after one thousand years (or a number of years that is a multiple of one thousand). Though some Ancient Church Fathers of the first three centuries AD had Chiliast leanings, the Orthodox Church formally denounced Chiliasm at the Second Ecumenical Council, in 381. The Church maintains that the 1000 year reign mentioned in Revelation 20 is symbolic of the era of the Christian Church’s ministry in this fallen world, which shall come to its completion at a time unknown to all but God the Father. This belief remains true to Jesus’ own words regarding His return and the final judgement: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is.”[Mark 13:32-33]

 

[spauline]

Thank you. You may want to temper future responses on this topic by ommiting the quantifier “countless mystics,” as Donovan nowhere implies this in his answer.

well, admittedly, Donovan doesn’t use that phrase. It was another EWTN priest who said it in a sermon, but I couldn’t find it last night in their search engine.

I’ll see if I can still find it.

blessings!
scott

 

[spauline]

This is one of the big problems I have with my fellow Catholics (not you, specifically, but in general) speculating on private revelations. On the one hand they’ll say “Of course it is not official Church doctrine” – and then they give the impression that you’re stupid or foolish if you don’t give it any weight at all, which as Catholics, we are free to do without guilt or damage to our salvation or sanctification.

by no means do I draw my views purely from private rev. I think the mystics’ scenario here is more compatible with an overall Catholic theology in even Public Rev. The notion of an intermediate apostasy that is healed is already present in OT history, and here we speak of the Babylonian exile that restored the Jews to the Old Cov. Hence, if there is to be only one significant apostasy in Church History (the one of the very end), then it means that God “cannot” or has not predestined a restoration of the Gentiles to Catholicism after having fallen away from it.

that is , the Jews were initially persecuted (egypt), they were delivered into their kingdom (exodus, israel), THEN they fell away in a big way, were chastised, restored to the Cov and homeland, and THEN their Antichrist came (Antiochus IV ), and THEN Christ came the first time.

But a pessimistic view of Church history (i.e., strict amillennialism) (only ONE significant apostasy) means there is no parallel of the intermediate apostasy, chastisement and restoration in the New Cove. That is, strict amill sees only two great eras of sin in Church history, pagan Rome in the beginning, and the Great Apostasy at the end, that is, it denies an intermediate apostasy that is healed.

That does not make any sense to me: that Rome fulfills Egypt, the NT antichrist fulfills Antiochus, but that there is no fulfillment of the intermediate sin and Babylonian exile/restoration. For if the restoration to OT Cov after the exile was PREDESTINED (and I cannot see how you could deny this as a Catholic in good standing), how can you believe God has not predestined a restoration to the current apostasy? Or do you think the current apostasy is the beginning of the end?

 

[spauline]

I don’t think the Church has a definitive teaching regarding this but…
The answer to your question hinges on whether or not apocolyptic literature is literal, figurative or some combination of the two.

The strongest case, (imho) is that it is completely figurative. I also think most rational people can agree that poetry is usually about as far from literal as you can get. Thus the 1000 years is no more literal than the 1000 hills in Ps. 50:10.

My :twocents:

Peace,
+Nathan

purely allegorical meanings can be drawn from Genesis 1-11. Clearly this is the case. But Genesis 1-11is not PURE allegory in its primary genre. It is PARTIAL allegory. For it is truly conveying the great historical developments of the beginning of human and salvation history. It is just doing it in a figurative fashion.

Similarly, of course one can draw PURELY allegorical meanings from the Apocalypse. And yet, there is a sense in which it is not MERE idealism, that is, that it is saying some things about salvation history, which would render it more partial allegory.

For example, admittedly, we can see the beast and false prophet as a purely metaphorical symbol of sin in any of the great sinful stages of human history, where man makes himself his “own god”.

And yet there are texts that obviously involve something more than pure idealism, for example, the delineation of the beast’s heads in Rev. 17. For the process of sinful resistance, chastisement and redemption does not go on forever in human history. There will be a final manifestion of sin in history that will no longer be able to be practically healed, and the Church herself proclaims that she will recognize at that time when the world has reached that final stage of sin.

but the future recognition of such will not be possible for the Church if Revelation is merely purely allegorical. Therefore, I would say at least SOME partial allegory must be present in the text of the Apoc.