Catholic Millenialism?

[awatkins69]

Is there any acceptable position so that Catholics can believe in a Millennial reign of Christ on earth? Or are Catholics only allowed to believe in amillennialism, and think that the reign of Christ through the Church is the millennium? Thanks.

 

[Robbinson]

I believe the Church has officially rejected the literal millenial kingdom interpretation and teaches that Christ is reigning in heaven now, with the saints and the kingdom of God is here with us now (albeit imperfectly until His return) embodied within the Church and all believers.

Church teaching is that Christ will return and then there will be judgement, rather than Christ will return, reign on earth for 1,000 years and then there will be judgement.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[COPLAND_3]

As far as I know, unless I missed something, I am sure that we can believe in a literal future 1000 year reign. There are some great Early Church Fathers who understood it that way, so I am not too critical of it even though I am an amillenialist.

But I have seen Catholic apologists who take the Catechism and other important documents to make the case that the Church opposes pre-mill, but I only see it as being more of a grey area and not a declaration of opposition. There is no doubt that amill is the consensus.

 

[Spencerian]

I think that the two answers to the OP might not be the most accurate assessment to explain the Church’s teaching position on this subject.

To start, see this Catholic Answers tract on “The Rapture” and the Church’s stance.

 

[awatkins69]

Well, I know the Church rejects the modern “Rapture” idea. However I meant to ask whether we can distinguish between a fundamentalist notion of millennialism and a Catholic notion of millennialism. Or does the Church reject the theory of millennialism outright, and believe in strict amillennialism?

I’m wondering, because it seems to me apparent (at least, from wikipedia) that St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr were both millennialists. It also seems that both amillennialism and millennialism were accepted in the early Church (cf. “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” chapter 80). I’ve also visited some websites which espoused a Catholic form of millennialism.

 

[Robbinson]

I think that the two answers to the OP might not be the most accurate assessment to explain the Church’s teaching position on this subject.

To start, see this Catholic Answers tract on “The Rapture” and the Church’s stance.

Thanks - though I do think the Catholic answers link you provided is consistent with my reply to the OP (most relevantly : their statement " The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called “millenarianism” (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught,” though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue. "

 

[COPLAND_3]

Well, I know the Church rejects the modern “Rapture” idea. However I meant to ask whether we can distinguish between a fundamentalist notion of millennialism and a Catholic notion of millennialism. Or does the Church reject the theory of millennialism outright, and believe in strict amillennialism?

I’m wondering, because it seems to me apparent (at least, from wikipedia) that St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr were both millennialists. It also seems that both amillennialism and millennialism were accepted in the early Church (cf. “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” chapter 80). I’ve also visited some websites which espoused a Catholic form of millennialism.

Yes, there are some great Church Fathers who were pre-millenialists, I actually put together an end times critic a couple of years ago where I based it on the Fathers, litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Eschatology

I plan to do an update sometime down the road.

There is a big distinction between being pre-millenial and pre-trib. Pre-trib means that you believe that the church will be raptured before the Great Tribulation. That is a major distinction between dispensationalists and the pre-millenialist view of the Fathers. You do not have to be pre-trib in order to be a pre-mill. Pre-mill means that you believe in a literal 1000 year reign. The Fathers were not pre-trib at all.

Another major distinction between the dispensationalists and the pre-mill Fathers is that dispensationalists usually have a much underrated view of the Church, and they view the nation Israel as God’s main purpose and the church is sort of a bandaid quick fix until Israel receives the Messiah. The Fathers always understood that the Church is God’s fulfillment and plan, and that He is more interested in the spiritual Israel and not so much the earthly Israel. The Fathers understood that Christians are the new people of God, the spiritual Israel, made up of both Jew and Gentile, which is why Paul said, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.” Gal 3:29 After the Reformation some protestants have downplayed the role of the church, which mixes their eschatology and their anti-Catholic views into one. The dispensationalists put a division between Israel and the Church as two separate people of God, whereas the Fathers and amill Catholics see Jews and Gentiles as all one people of God through Christ. For Jesus said, “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” Mt 3:9

St. Augustine seemed to set a new standard on amillenialism which became the norm for those who followed.

 

[awatkins69]

You answered my questions well. I was wondering whether there is a distinction between pre-trib dispensationalist pre-mils, and Catholic Patristic pre-mils. The quote people give earlier shows that the Church condemns millenniarianism, which I think does not encompass millennialism as a whole, but only a specific error. Is that correct? So, at this point, are Catholics allowed to believe in any sort of pre-millennialism, or has it all been condemned? If so, it just seems to me that the Church is condemning a huge amount of patristic literature as being simply wrong.

 

[Robbinson]

Yes, there are some great Church Fathers who were pre-millenialists, I actually put together an end times critic a couple of years ago where I based it on the Fathers, litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Eschatology

I plan to do an update sometime down the road.

There is a big distinction between being pre-millenial and pre-trib. Pre-trib means that you believe that the church will be raptured before the Great Tribulation. That is a major distinction between dispensationalists and the pre-millenialist view of the Fathers. You do not have to be pre-trib in order to be a pre-mill. Pre-mill means that you believe in a literal 1000 year reign. The Fathers were not pre-trib at all.

Another major distinction between the dispensationalists and the pre-mill Fathers is that dispensationalists usually have a much underrated view of the Church, and they view the nation Israel as God’s main purpose and the church is sort of a bandaid quick fix until Israel receives the Messiah. The Fathers always understood that the Church is God’s fulfillment and plan, and that He is more interested in the spiritual Israel and not so much the earthly Israel. The Fathers understood that Christians are the new people of God, the spiritual Israel, made up of both Jew and Gentile, which is why Paul said, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.” Gal 3:29 After the Reformation some protestants have downplayed the role of the church, which mixes their eschatology and their anti-Catholic views into one. The dispensationalists put a division between Israel and the Church as two separate people of God, whereas the Fathers and amill Catholics see Jews and Gentiles as all one people of God through Christ. For Jesus said, “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” Mt 3:9

St. Augustine seemed to set a new standard on amillenialism which became the norm for those who followed.

Great post - thanks

 

[COPLAND_3]

You answered my questions well. I was wondering whether there is a distinction between pre-trib dispensationalist pre-mils, and Catholic Patristic pre-mils. The quote people give earlier shows that the Church condemns millenniarianism, which I think does not encompass millennialism as a whole, but only a specific error. Is that correct? So, at this point, are Catholics allowed to believe in any sort of pre-millennialism, or has it all been condemned? If so, it just seems to me that the Church is condemning a huge amount of patristic literature as being simply wrong.

I have seen where it says in the Catechism about a rejection of millenniarianism in paragraph 676, but is a little obscure to me, which I am not completely sure if it is referring to pre-millenialism specifically, or utopianism in general, especially the kingdom of the Antichrist. I would like to see an authoritative explaination such as a bishop or the Pope clarifying it, or especially from the quoted source “Denzinger Schonmetzer 3839.”

But, if it is rejected now, that does not take away from the saintliness of those who held that position before. The Fathers of the Church were not infallible.

 

[awatkins69]

I did find this while reading on wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_premillennialism

While it would be a minority position in the Catholic Church, couldn’t it be acceptable? There are differences between the dispensationalist view, such as that the Church and Israel are not two separate covenants, and not believing in the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I did find this while reading on wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_premillennialism

While it would be a minority position in the Catholic Church, couldn’t it be acceptable? There are differences between the dispensationalist view, such as that the Church and Israel are not two separate covenants, and not believing in the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine.

It appears to me, speculation only, that the Church had to eventually start rejecting it because pre-millenialism started taking on forms that were becoming dangerous and effecting many people, as if to say that the Church wants to steer people away from potential danger. The growth and popularity has gotten so big that it has effected Catholics. I can understand because I have heard numerous Catholics talk about reading the Left Behind series, which can be harmful to the faith of Catholics. Maybe early on it was not a big deal. But we do see where Eusebius and St. Jerome had serious issues with it, Jerome even took the commentary of St. Victorinus on Revelation and changed the pre-mill interpretation to amill and that is the form that we have it now.

Eusebius says of Papias in book 3, chapter 39

1. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

1. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.