Do Catholics believe in the Millennium

[JohnCarroll]

Hello
Do Catholics believe in the Millennium?–I.E. 1000 years of rule by Christ on Earth after He returns?. This puzzles me as every early father I can find seems to imply an agreement with this idea --the exception being Eusebius who makes fun of those who hold this idea but does not give his reasons. Interested to hear your ideas.

 

[cmom]

No we do not. Christs reigns in heaven and we will join Him there.

 

[copland]

John,

As a former Southern Baptist who has been convinced that the Cathoic Church has the correct interpretation, I have found that many of the Church Fathers did not hold a pre-mill interpretation. A symbolic thousand years was held by Origin and later by Augustine and then by Western church by 400ad. Held by Roman Catholic church as well as by Reformers, and written into the Augsburg and Westminster Confessions.

Augustine at first believed in a literal 1000 years, but later on changed to amill.

But I guess in a sense we do believe that Christ is reigning literally in the Eucharist, but the 1000 years is symbolic.

2 Peter 3:8 says “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.”

 

[copland]

IJohn,

Ooops, I forgot to completely answer your question.

Catholics believe that the promises made to national Israel, David and Abraham, in the OT are fulfilled by Christ and the Church during this age, which is the millennium, that is the entire period of time between the two advents of our Lord. The “thousand years” are therefore symbolic of the entire inter-advental age. Satan is bound by Christ’s victory over him and the establishment of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel, and Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations, through the presence of Christ is reigning in heaven during this period with the martyrs who come out of the great tribulation. At the end of the millennial age, Christ returns in judgement of all men. The general resurrection occurs, final judgement takes place for all men and women, and a new Heaven and Earth are established.

Hope this helps!

 

[JohnCarroll]

copland:

John,

As a former Southern Baptist who has been convinced that the Cathoic Church has the correct interpretation, I have found that many of the Church Fathers did not hold a pre-mill interpretation. A symbolic thousand years was held by Origin and later by Augustine and then by Western church by 400ad. Held by Roman Catholic church as well as by Reformers, and written into the Augsburg and Westminster Confessions.

Augustine at first believed in a literal 1000 years, but later on changed to amill.

But I guess in a sense we do believe that Christ is reigning literally in the Eucharist, but the 1000 years is symbolic.

2 Peter 3:8 says “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.”

Thanks very much for responding. As you do , I find so much evidence in the Fathers that they did believe this in the Millennium ( pre Augustine). They were quite literal with the 1000 years. Is it Ausustine who changed things? It seems so strange to hear of a Doctor of the Church going against early teaching. Usually the Church takes their testimony very seriously. Why not now?

 

[JohnCarroll]

copland:

IJohn,

Ooops, I forgot to completely answer your question.

Catholics believe that the promises made to national Israel, David and Abraham, in the OT are fulfilled by Christ and the Church during this age, which is the millennium, that is the entire period of time between the two advents of our Lord. The “thousand years” are therefore symbolic of the entire inter-advental age. Satan is bound by Christ’s victory over him and the establishment of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel, and Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations, through the presence of Christ is reigning in heaven during this period with the martyrs who come out of the great tribulation. At the end of the millennial age, Christ returns in judgement of all men. The general resurrection occurs, final judgement takes place for all men and women, and a new Heaven and Earth are established.

Hope this helps!

Thanks Copland but I say again , why go against the early Fathers? In My handy Dandy copy of The Early Fathers ( happy Fathers Day) by Jurgens , as you may know , he lists Catholic ideas and where they are found in the early writings in the back of his books. Under the Millennium every one but Eusebius supports it–contrary to the statement he makes saying Catholic doctrine opposes it.

 

[copland]

John,

Who is going against who? Like I said, there are mostly amill Church Fathers, which means that they believe in a “symbolic” 1000 years. And that is the position of the Catholic Church.

But the magisterium of the Catholic Church does have the authority to interpret, and there are times they clearly state that one of the early Church Fathers was not totally correct. So I guess that would fall in line with what I think you are getting to.

 

[JohnCarroll]

copland:

John,

Who is going against who? Like I said, there are mostly amill Church Fathers, which means that they believe in a “symbolic” 1000 years. And that is the position of the Catholic Church.

But the magisterium of the Catholic Church does have the authority to interpret, and there are times they clearly state that one of the early Church Fathers was not totally correct. So I guess that would fall in line with what I think you are getting to.

Yes, they do have that right but why did they? And it is not rejecting one Father but Justin Marter,Irenaeus,Tertullian,Origen,
lactantius,and Papias

 

[Fidelis]

Even if all of the Church Fathers did agree on a literal thousand year earthly reign of Christ, it wouldn’t be a de fide article of faith unless the Church officially taught it, which it has not. Our beliefs are not decided by majority rule, but by the constant, defined teaching of the Church.

I have heard it speculated that the reason that many of the Fathers might have believed in the literal 1000 year reign is because they all lived before the year 1000 AD. From their perspective, it made good sense. It shows one of the pitfalls of trying to tie the prophecies of Scripture to any one era, including our own.

 

[JohnCarroll]

Fidelis:

Even if all of the Church Fathers did agree on a literal thousand year earthly reign of Christ, it wouldn’t be a de fide article of faith unless the Church officially taught it, which it has not. Our beliefs are not decided by majority rule, but by the constant, defined teaching of the Church.

I have heard it speculated that the reason that many of the Fathers might have believed in the literal 1000 year reign is because they all lived before the year 1000 AD. From their perspective, it made good sense. It shows one of the pitfalls of trying to tie the prophecies of Scripture to any one era, including our own.

What you say makes since. But , I think they were speculating about 1000 years after he returns. Weren’t they?Quotes if you need them --but i am a slow typist.

Example from Justin speaking of Christs return:
But I and such other Christians as judge rightly in everything believe that there will be … a thousand years in which Jerusalem will be built up , adorned and Enlarged, as the Prophets Ezechiel and Isias and others declare

 

[JohnCarroll]

Fidelis:

Even if all of the Church Fathers did agree on a literal thousand year earthly reign of Christ, it wouldn’t be a de fide article of faith unless the Church officially taught it, which it has not. Our beliefs are not decided by majority rule, but by the constant, defined teaching of the Church.

I have heard it speculated that the reason that many of the Fathers might have believed in the literal 1000 year reign is because they all lived before the year 1000 AD. From their perspective, it made good sense. It shows one of the pitfalls of trying to tie the prophecies of Scripture to any one era, including our own.

I agree with you about not needing the Fathers to make a pronouncment but IS this a de fide article of faith or just current , if overwhelming, opinion?
I’m going to eat Pizza now . Be back soon

 

[Todd_Easton]

Apparently referring to his belief in the Millenial reign of Jesus Christ in a rebuilt Jerusalem, Justin Martyr admits that there are true Christians who do not share his belief:

“I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter LXXX, emphasis added.)

Todd

 

[twf]

Has the Church taught us otherwise? I find it hard to understand Isaiah 65:17-25 outside the context of a temporary earthly reign of Christ after His return. Could someone perhaps explain it? It speaks of a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ and a paradise for man, yet there appears to be death as well (vs. 20). Or is that just metaphorical…and the prophet is saying that there will be no death? As well, what about Ezk. 40 onward (the last few chaptes of the book)? How are we to understand the intricate detail given to this future temple and how the land is to be plotted out if there is no Millenial Kingdom? Surely they are not simply symbolic of the Church age?

 

[JohnCarroll]

twf:

Has the Church taught us otherwise? I find it hard to understand Isaiah 65:17-25 outside the context of a temporary earthly reign of Christ after His return. Could someone perhaps explain it? It speaks of a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ and a paradise for man, yet there appears to be death as well (vs. 20). Or is that just metaphorical…and the prophet is saying that there will be no death? As well, what about Ezk. 40 onward (the last few chaptes of the book)? How are we to understand the intricate detail given to this future temple and how the land is to be plotted out if there is no Millenial Kingdom? Surely they are not simply symbolic of the Church age?

Thank you TWF and others. Those are good points . What about TWF’s statement above? Just asking again , this is Apologetics, is no literal 1000 years really decided as an a part of the faith or is it a widely held opinion?

 

[Melchior]

Almost all of the Fathers were Amillenial or PostMillennial (which is just a more optimistic Amill).

I think it can be well argued that St. Agustine ws Postmillennial in his view.

At any rate these are the two classic views of the historic Church. Amill has certainly been the most accepted.

The Premillennial Dispensational nonsense (Left Behind Eschatology) is not even 200 years old.

Mel (who is postmillennial leaning)

 

[copland]

Here is a site that gives you a break down of the Fathers of the Church and some direct quotes of those who seem to support a literal 1000years. northforest.org/classic/kingisrael/h002h000.html

But as I have experienced with other subjects that concern the Church Fathers supposingly supporting certain doctrines or issues, I have found that when you take a really close look at what they did say it is not as cut and dry as what someone may say it to be. I don;t think any of these fathers would have been part of the cast to the “Left Behind” movie!

 

[JohnCarroll]

copland:

Here is a site that gives you a break down of the Fathers of the Church and some direct quotes of those who seem to support a literal 1000years. northforest.org/classic/kingisrael/h002h000.html

But as I have experienced with other subjects that concern the Church Fathers supposingly supporting certain doctrines or issues, I have found that when you take a really close look at what they did say it is not as cut and dry as what someone may say it to be. I don;t think any of these fathers would have been part of the cast to the “Left Behind” movie!

Thanks to all
No , I don’t think the Millienium idea and the " Left Behind " thing are of the same cloth.

 

[JohnCarroll]

copland:

Here is a site that gives you a break down of the Fathers of the Church and some direct quotes of those who seem to support a literal 1000years. northforest.org/classic/kingisrael/h002h000.html

But as I have experienced with other subjects that concern the Church Fathers supposingly supporting certain doctrines or issues, I have found that when you take a really close look at what they did say it is not as cut and dry as what someone may say it to be. I don;t think any of these fathers would have been part of the cast to the “Left Behind” movie!

Thanks for the web site. I still didn’t find my Irenaeus quote in the Irenaeus section though. Using a finder and it maybe a different wording.

 

[Fidelis]

JohnCarroll:

Thanks to all
No , I don’t think the Millienium idea and the " Left Behind " thing are of the same cloth.

The idea of the Millenium (a literal thousand year earthly reign of Christ) is in fact very central to the theology undergirding the Left Behind series.

As far as the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, they do in fact speak of a future glorious fulfilment, but primarily in events that surrounded the first coming of Jesus in the first century. If you wantto read a really excellent book that goes into great detail about what the Bible teaches about this from a non-Dispensationalist/Pre-millenial persective, I strongly recommend David Curies recent book, Rapture: The End Times Error That Leaves The Bible Behind, available from Sophia Books.

 

[Matt16_18]

The idea of a literal millennial reign of God on earth predates Christianity. Before Jesus revealed himself as the Messiah, Jewish scholars were reading their scriptures and trying to reconcile all the Messianic passages in the scriptures. One problem that they struggled mightily with is the harmonizing of the Messianic passages that spoke of the Messiah as a triumphant king, and the passages that spoke of the Messiah as a suffering servant. Some Jews, such as the Essenes that gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls, came up with an interpretation that there would be two Messiahs - a Messiah ben Joseph that would fulfill the suffering servant Messianic prophesies, and the Messiah ben David that would be the triumphant king on earth. The idea that there would be a triumphant King reigning on earth is where the Jewish idea of the millennial reign first appeared.

The first Church Fathers were familiar with the pre-Christian era Jewish interpretations of Scriptures. The latter Church Fathers began to discard the Jewish eschatology that supported the millenial reign, and they began to accept the amillenial interpretation of the scriptures.

Jonn Carroll

• I agree with you about not needing the Fathers to make a pronouncment but IS this a de fide article of faith or just current , if overwhelming, opinion?*

I don’t think that the Church has ever solemnly defined that the amillenialist position is a dogma of the faith. The Catechism does reflect the amillenialist position, and the Catholic Church rejects the “secret rapture of the Christians” heresy.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Church’s ultimate trial

675** Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.