A
amgid
Guest
Thank you flame. You obviously know more about this stuff than I do. I only know what LDS scripture teaches—with difficulty!
amgid
Do LDS Believe A Premillenial Rapture Occurred Prior to the Great Apostasy?
- Status
amgid
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Robert in SD:
Christ was never to Reign threw his church. He wont sit on his own personal throne to rule the earth until his second coming.
Matt 25
31 ¶ When the aSon of man shall come in his bglory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
This is where I disagree.
Christ was never to Reign threw his church. He wont sit on his own personal throne to rule the earth until his second coming.
Matt 25
31 ¶ When the aSon of man shall come in his bglory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
F
flameburns623
Guest
Catholics don’t deny this. They do believe that Christ will one day rule His people directly and not through the mediation of a Church. They simply believe He will not set up a reign of a thousand years on earth. They think His kingdom of direct rule, once established, will have no end. Meanwhile He reigns indirectly right now through His Holy Ghost and through the Church He established.
This aspect of Catholic eschatology isn’t too terribly different from what Mormons or even Evangelical Protestants believe. Where most Evangelicals and Mormons differ from is on the subject of a Millenium–a literal, thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, with His throne literally established in Jerusalem (or in Far West Missouri, in LDS eschatology). Some Evangelicals are a-millenial, but most are pre-millenial or post-millenial.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
This is true however. You missed the rounds I went with a Catholic poster on this over at FAIR. According to him and much of the Cathcism he quoted, Christ is already sitting on his throne and reigning. the 1000 years has some ho morphed into 2000 and just means some long unspecified amount of time. 
F
flameburns623
Guest
I hope someone more familiar with RCC eschatology will weigh in. However so far as I understand the Catholic understanding of this topic, Christ IS reigning from Heaven already. Right now he reigns on Earth indirectly, through the medium of His Church. After the Second Advent, He will reign directly.
For a-millenialists, the reign of Christ through His Church IS the Millenium. Remember that the ‘a-’ in ‘a-millenial’ means ‘no’ as in ‘no millenium’. The ‘Thousand Years’ is not seen as a literal span of 1000 years but is a symbolic of some long but finite period of time.The 1000 years has somehow morphed into 2000 and just means some long unspecified amount of time.
Perhaps these articles will be of sme help. Rember though that eschatology is one of the most controversial areas of theology and that there is a constant churning and blending of different views so that even within various ‘schools’ of thought there are great variations of opinions.
enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=386
enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=403
reformedtheology.ca/endtimes.htm
soulcare.org/Bible%20Studies/eschatology_views.htm
My posting of these links should not be taken to mean I endorse the views therein–I selected these after a cursory review as a good assortment by which to gain a quick overview of the topic.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I thought this might be a good framework for comparing Catholic and LDS beliefs concerning the Parousia. Here’s some of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states on Christ’s return:
He Will Come Again in Glory…
Overall, the Catholic view seems fairly similar to what non-Catholic premillenialists may believe, but without the post-return 1,000 year reign. Most catholics believe that the “1,000 years” is already occurring now, while Christ reigns through the Church. It makes sense that the LDS Church and other Protestant churches would reject the Catholic view, as they have only been around since the 1800s - and cannot point to the continuous reign of Christ through their churches.
He Will Come Again in Glory…
Overall, the Catholic view seems fairly similar to what non-Catholic premillenialists may believe, but without the post-return 1,000 year reign. Most catholics believe that the “1,000 years” is already occurring now, while Christ reigns through the Church. It makes sense that the LDS Church and other Protestant churches would reject the Catholic view, as they have only been around since the 1800s - and cannot point to the continuous reign of Christ through their churches.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Matt 25
31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
How can he be reigning right now?
31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
How can he be reigning right now?
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
He is reigning from Heaven - on his throne - through His Church that has persisted for 2000 years despite the best efforts of those both within and without who have tried to destroy it.
Why do you believe that this text must refer to an earthly political throne, and that Jesus must physcially reign from Earth? It sounds to me like you’re expecting the same kind of “messiah” that the people who crucified Jesus Christ were expecting - a political leader. Do you think you may be similarly mistaken or, perhaps, misguided?
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Robert in SD:
Rev. 3: 21
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
He is sitting on his fathers throne until the throne of David on the earth is finally given to him, and all rule and power has been put down.
No becuase that is precisly what he is to finally do at his second coming.
Rev 19
Becuase according to the Lord he is not sitting on his personal throne yet.
Rev. 3: 21
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
He is sitting on his fathers throne until the throne of David on the earth is finally given to him, and all rule and power has been put down.
No becuase that is precisly what he is to finally do at his second coming.
Rev 19
A
amgid
Guest
Robert in SD:
Revelation 20:
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
This clearly states that at the beginning of the Millennium, Satan will be bound for the period of 1000 years so that he will not be able to deceive the nations, until that period comes to an end; and that at the end of it Satan will be loosed again so that he can have one last try at deceiving the nations. If your understanding of the Millennium is correct, and we are currently living during the Millennium, and have been living during the past 2000 years, then you must believe that Satan must currently be bound, and must have been bound during the past 2000 years, so that he does not, and would not have had power to “deceive the nations” during the past 2000 years including the present time. But we know that that is not the case. Satan has been aaround, and has been doing his bit during the past 2000 years, and continues to do! So how does your figurative interpretation get round that problem?
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
This unmistakably states that there are two resurrections, one at the beginning of the Millennium one at the end; and that the Millennium will then come to an end. It clearly distinguishes between a first resurrection and a second resurrection, one at the beginning and one at the end. It states that at the beginning of the Millennium, there will be a general resurrection of all the true saints who had believed in, testified of, or martyred in the cause of Jesus will be resurrected to live with Christ during the Millennium. If your understanding is correct, then we must assume that this event must have already occurred. When did it occur?
According to the Revelation, before the Millennium begins, a number of important events must take place, including a general resurrection, which are described in the previous chapters of the Revelation, most of which have not yet taken place. How does your allegorical interpretation cater for those?
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
This states that at the end of the Millennium Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations once more. So in what stage of the Millennium do you reckon we are living in then, before it, after it, or in the middle of it?! If in the middle of it, how come Satan is busy at work doing his usual bit? If at the end, when did it come to an end? If at the beginning, I thought you said we weren’t!
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
For several reasons: Firstly, because the language of the Revelation is too detailed, specific, and explicit to be interpreted any other way. Let’s examine them a bit more carefully:
Revelation 20:
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
This clearly states that at the beginning of the Millennium, Satan will be bound for the period of 1000 years so that he will not be able to deceive the nations, until that period comes to an end; and that at the end of it Satan will be loosed again so that he can have one last try at deceiving the nations. If your understanding of the Millennium is correct, and we are currently living during the Millennium, and have been living during the past 2000 years, then you must believe that Satan must currently be bound, and must have been bound during the past 2000 years, so that he does not, and would not have had power to “deceive the nations” during the past 2000 years including the present time. But we know that that is not the case. Satan has been aaround, and has been doing his bit during the past 2000 years, and continues to do! So how does your figurative interpretation get round that problem?
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
This unmistakably states that there are two resurrections, one at the beginning of the Millennium one at the end; and that the Millennium will then come to an end. It clearly distinguishes between a first resurrection and a second resurrection, one at the beginning and one at the end. It states that at the beginning of the Millennium, there will be a general resurrection of all the true saints who had believed in, testified of, or martyred in the cause of Jesus will be resurrected to live with Christ during the Millennium. If your understanding is correct, then we must assume that this event must have already occurred. When did it occur?
According to the Revelation, before the Millennium begins, a number of important events must take place, including a general resurrection, which are described in the previous chapters of the Revelation, most of which have not yet taken place. How does your allegorical interpretation cater for those?
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
This states that at the end of the Millennium Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations once more. So in what stage of the Millennium do you reckon we are living in then, before it, after it, or in the middle of it?! If in the middle of it, how come Satan is busy at work doing his usual bit? If at the end, when did it come to an end? If at the beginning, I thought you said we weren’t!
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
Thus the end of the Millennium leads to the general resurrection of all the dead, the last judgment, and final destruction of the devil and those who have followed him. This clearly identifies the Millennium a specified period of time, with some specific things happening at the beginning of it or before it; some specific things happening at the end of it; and some specific things happening during it. These are too detailed and specific to be understood as you have done. How do you get round that?
Secondly, and most importantly for us, we believe as we believe because in modern LDS scripture the Lord has informed us that that is the true meaning of the scriptures. People like yourself often tell us that we don’t need more revelation from God because we already have all that we need in the Bible. The answers to that is that we need revelation, among other things, to give us definitive answers to the kind of questions that you are raising, as the following quotes testify:
D&C 29:
10 For the hour is nigh, and that which was spoken by mine apostles must be fulfilled; for as they spoke so shall it come to pass;
11 For I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand.
22 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you that when the thousand years are ended, and men again begin to deny their God, then will I spare the earth but for a little season;
23 And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth.
24 For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea;
25 And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hand.
D&C 43:
29 For in mine own due time will I come upon the earth in judgment, and my people shall be redeemed and shall reign with me on earth.
30 For the great Millennium, of which I have spoken by the mouth of my servants, shall come.
31 For Satan shall be bound, and when he is loosed again he shall only reign for a little season, and then cometh the end of the earth.
D&C 88:
100 And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation;
101 And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth.
110 And so on, until the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years.
111 And then he shall be loosed for a little season, that he may gather together his armies.
Thirdly, another good reason to believe as we do is the fact that this is how the early Christians almost unanimously interpreted the scriptures. I have an old Catholic dictionary at home which I picked up very cheaply in a second user bookstore, and it has turned out to be a useful addition to my private library. Under the heading of Millennium, it openly admits that this doctrine was very widely accepted in the early Church; and then without any reasonable justification it goes on to assert the current Catholic position above the early Christian one.
amgid
Thus the end of the Millennium leads to the general resurrection of all the dead, the last judgment, and final destruction of the devil and those who have followed him. This clearly identifies the Millennium a specified period of time, with some specific things happening at the beginning of it or before it; some specific things happening at the end of it; and some specific things happening during it. These are too detailed and specific to be understood as you have done. How do you get round that?
Secondly, and most importantly for us, we believe as we believe because in modern LDS scripture the Lord has informed us that that is the true meaning of the scriptures. People like yourself often tell us that we don’t need more revelation from God because we already have all that we need in the Bible. The answers to that is that we need revelation, among other things, to give us definitive answers to the kind of questions that you are raising, as the following quotes testify:
D&C 29:
10 For the hour is nigh, and that which was spoken by mine apostles must be fulfilled; for as they spoke so shall it come to pass;
11 For I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand.
22 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you that when the thousand years are ended, and men again begin to deny their God, then will I spare the earth but for a little season;
23 And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth.
24 For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea;
25 And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hand.
D&C 43:
29 For in mine own due time will I come upon the earth in judgment, and my people shall be redeemed and shall reign with me on earth.
30 For the great Millennium, of which I have spoken by the mouth of my servants, shall come.
31 For Satan shall be bound, and when he is loosed again he shall only reign for a little season, and then cometh the end of the earth.
D&C 88:
100 And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation;
101 And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth.
110 And so on, until the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years.
111 And then he shall be loosed for a little season, that he may gather together his armies.
Thirdly, another good reason to believe as we do is the fact that this is how the early Christians almost unanimously interpreted the scriptures. I have an old Catholic dictionary at home which I picked up very cheaply in a second user bookstore, and it has turned out to be a useful addition to my private library. Under the heading of Millennium, it openly admits that this doctrine was very widely accepted in the early Church; and then without any reasonable justification it goes on to assert the current Catholic position above the early Christian one.
That is an interesting observation. The Jews were not entirely wrong in the way in which they interpreted their scriptures. The mistake that they made was that they confused the first and the second coming of the Lord together. That is not unlike the kind of mistake that you are making—by confusing the beginning and ending of the Millennium together. There is indeed a true Millennium, with specific (and often similar) events taking place at the beginning as well as at the end of it, hence the apparent reason behind your confusion.
amgid
M
majick275
Guest
sure seems like you are cherry picking what parts of revelations are symbolic and which are literal. You might want to rethink your analysis of apocalyptic writing.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
amgid said:
Thanks amgid.
I don’t deny the concept of a millenium, I just believe that it is not inagurated by Christ’s Second Coming, although it does conclude with His return, and that the millenium talked about in the Bible is also the age in which we are currently residing. This perception fits with all of the scripture passages you quote. None of the passages you cite to requires one to understand the millenium as a physical reign of Christ that is established after his Second Coming. Indeed, it appears to me that such an interpretation would require both a Second Coming, and a Third Coming.
Thanks, amgid, for presenting your understanding of the LDS position on the millenium. Still, nothing you have presented leads me to re-think my position on the matter, or on my understanding of Revelation in general or the millenial reign specifically.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the LDS interpretation of the concept of a literal future thousand year reign is absolutely necessary for the LDS church in light of the necessity of the concept of a “restoration” of the true church. (In other words, LDS members are compelled to ask, “How can the millenial reign occur in the midst of a total apostacy?”) Thus, the LDS position seems a bit forced to me, just as the fundamentalist position has always seemed a bit forced from their other doctrinal positions regarding the Church.
And, finally, since I have yet to see any real evidence of a total or “great” apostasy, and since I see no necessity for any restoration by Joseph Smith, I fail to see any compelling reasons for setting aside my understanding of Revelation - as taught from a Catholic perspective - to embrace the teachings of your faith. Regarding earlier teachings, there is a careful review of the early history of the Church and its perception of the end times in Olsen’s Will Catholics be Left Behind, that clarifies the Church’s consistent teaching on this issue.
Despite my lack of being persuaded, I certainly appreciate your contribution to the discussion. It has helped me to understand where you and other LDS members are coming from. But again, I will have to respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
A
amgid
Guest
Robert in SD:
amgid
Thank you for your courteous reply; but whether you accept the doctrine of the Apostasy or not, it can have no logical or theological bearing on how you understand the Millennium. If so, how then do you account for the widespread acceptance of it by the early Christians?
amgid
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
It does not impact my Catholic understanding of the Millenium, but the LDS Church’s doctrine of the “Great Apostasy” logically precludes an amillenialist view. Consider that *if * there was a total apostasy that resulted in the removal of all Church authority, then Christ could not have reigned on Earth continually through His Church, since it was removed for about 1600 years, until Joseph Smith’s restoration. That was my point.
It was not my point that the lack of a Great Apostasy disproves Millenialism. My point was the opposite - that the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy precludes acceptance of amillenialism. So, I’m not sure I get your point here.
As for early christians who believed in a form of millenialism, let me first stress that it is important to note there has never been a doctrinal statement accepting premillenialism, so to the extent your post may be implying that the Church “changed” its doctrine from premillenialism to amillenialism it is not supported.
I’m sure that as a student of the history of the church you are aware that many early christians believed that the Second Coming was to occur in their lifetime, and many also believed that Christ’s return would usher in an earthly kingdom from which Christ would reign for a thousand years. The most prominent of these early groups were the Montanists. The Church had another word to describe them - heretics. The majority of the church always followed the “amillenialist” point of view. The concept of a secular messianism has been rejected by the church (literal 1,000 year earthly kingdom) has always been rejected.
A
amgid
Guest
Robert in SD:
amgid
The “point” that I was responding to was what you had expressed in the following paragraph in the previous post:
LDS members are not “compelled” to ask any such question, because such a question never arises in the first place. The “thousand year” Millennium, and the literal reign of Christ, are so plainly taught in the Bible, and affirmed in canonized LDS scripture, that that artificial question never arises in the LDS mind in the first place.
That is not what my Catholic dictionary says. I don’t think that this dictionary is on the Internet, so I have scanned the article into my computer, and will post it here for you in full. But I am going to chop it up in smaller bits so that I can comment on specific parts of it. It is Called A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, by William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, fellows of the university of Ireland; and revised by T. B. Scannell, D. D. It was published in 1955 by Virtue and Co. Ltd, London; and it is the fifteenth edition (fifth impression) of the book. The first edition was probably published over a hundred years ago. I picked it up second hand for $4.00! Here is the complete text:
This gives a pretty accurate summary of the scriptural text, and also that many early Christians interpreted it literally.
This goes further and affirms not only that the belief was held by “many early Christians,” but that it was very common among them, and proceeds to name some prominent ECFs who believed it. Now it proceeds to bring some very unsatisfactory arguments against it:
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
Jewish in origin? What is that supposed to mean? The whole of the gospel is “Jewish in origin”. The Apostles were all Jews. Jesus was a Jew! The OT was written by Jews. The Apocalypse, on the other hand, is indisputably is aChristian text; and that is where the doctrine is taught. It is no more “Jewish” than the rest of the Gospels are. Does the Catholic Church dismiss the Apocalypse as being Jewish?
2 Thessalonians 2:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
After that clear warning, the early Christians, or at least the orthodox ones, did not any more believe that the return of Christ was going to take place in their own lifetime.
amgid
Jewish in origin? What is that supposed to mean? The whole of the gospel is “Jewish in origin”. The Apostles were all Jews. Jesus was a Jew! The OT was written by Jews. The Apocalypse, on the other hand, is indisputably is aChristian text; and that is where the doctrine is taught. It is no more “Jewish” than the rest of the Gospels are. Does the Catholic Church dismiss the Apocalypse as being Jewish?
So he is still honest enough to tell us how widespread the belief was in the early Christian Church.
So now the Apostasy has reached such a fever pitch in the Christian world that “peace has to be restored” in it over such a simple issue!
In other words, after the Apostasy in the early Christian church was finally set in, the belief in the literal thousand years gradually died out! That is what it means.
So it finally admits that the belief was widely held by the ECFs and by most of the early Christians; that, interestingly, it cannot be regarded as “heretical” even now, but only “improbable;” and the “weight of evidence” against it is nothing more than an apostate Christian tradition.
That is not quite true. Some early saints in the days of the Apostles apparently had gottten some such idea into their heads, but St. Paul wrote to them and corrected their mistake:
2 Thessalonians 2:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
After that clear warning, the early Christians, or at least the orthodox ones, did not any more believe that the return of Christ was going to take place in their own lifetime.
Yes, I am sure many of them did. Most of them in fact I believe did!
I am not sure about that one. See the quote from the Catholic dictionary.
Not at all! See again the article quoted above.
Not according to my Catholic Dictionary. See above.
Evidently not so. See above.
amgid
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Dear amgid;
You are reading quite a bit into one dictionary entry. *Nothing * in the language of that discussion states that the Church spoke with authority on the issue, then changed it’s mind. As such, the issue was open to much debate. That is far from the “anarchy” that you seem to suggest arose from the difference in belief. The situation would be similar to your earlier description of how LDS members are free to accept or reject the “possibility” that Jesus took a wife and had children. Why does that “difference of opinion” not cause the same sort of calamity for the LDS church that millenarianism caused in your opinion? You can’t have it both ways - describing differences of opinion on your side of the fence as “agency” and describing differences of opinion on Catholic issues that have not been authoritatively settled as evidence of the “Apostasy.” That’s just faulty reasoning, amgid.
Some other comments…
amgid:
A belief by many is not the same as an authoritative teaching on the issue. Millenarianism was never doctrine, as you suggest. See the link below. Again, an LDS similarity would be the LDS Church’s lack of position regarding the marital status of Jesus Christ. Just because some members say Christ was married, that does not make it doctrine, right? Or are you saying that a different set of rules applies to the Catholic Church?
amgid:
Regarding your questioning of the Montanists, they were early schismatics with heretical ideas. Read about it here…
Montanists - Catholic New Advent Website
And in Carl Olsen’s book “Will Catholics be ‘Left Behind’” he discusses early millenarianism and chiliasm in the Church. Prominent among the early millenarians were the Montanists. (Olsen, supra, p. 143.)
You also wrote:
amgid:
Millenium and Millenarianism - Catholic New Advent Website
Early belief in the Millenium does not establish its orthodoxy or its truth, just as evidence of early and widespread belief in Arianism and Gnosticism does not establish the orthodoxy or truth of those beliefs.
The issue comes down to one of authority. The Church is the institution with authority. The Church has been consistent in its *teaching * on the issue. Millenarianism is simply not sound.
You are reading quite a bit into one dictionary entry. *Nothing * in the language of that discussion states that the Church spoke with authority on the issue, then changed it’s mind. As such, the issue was open to much debate. That is far from the “anarchy” that you seem to suggest arose from the difference in belief. The situation would be similar to your earlier description of how LDS members are free to accept or reject the “possibility” that Jesus took a wife and had children. Why does that “difference of opinion” not cause the same sort of calamity for the LDS church that millenarianism caused in your opinion? You can’t have it both ways - describing differences of opinion on your side of the fence as “agency” and describing differences of opinion on Catholic issues that have not been authoritatively settled as evidence of the “Apostasy.” That’s just faulty reasoning, amgid.
Some other comments…
Huh? In *this * discussion any LDS member would be required to address the validity of amillenialism. When faced with the theory, an LDS member would be *compelled * to dismiss it because it does not comport with the idea of a removal and restoration of the Church. Are you seriously arguing that LDS members would never think about other biblical interpretations of the millenium because the book of Revelation is “obvious?” C’mon amgid. This argument lacks credibility.
amgid said:
A belief by many is not the same as an authoritative teaching on the issue. Millenarianism was never doctrine, as you suggest. See the link below. Again, an LDS similarity would be the LDS Church’s lack of position regarding the marital status of Jesus Christ. Just because some members say Christ was married, that does not make it doctrine, right? Or are you saying that a different set of rules applies to the Catholic Church?
How in the world do you leap from disagreement among theologians on a discreet theological issue to the conclusion that the “great apostasy” has reached “fever pitch?” Dispute over an interpretation of scripture is far from an apostasy. No one was denying the fundamental tenets of their christian faith - which would be absolutely required for an apostasy. The conclusion that differing opinions on the “millenium” is an apostasy is so far from supportable that it’s almost laughable. If doctrinal development is your evidence of a “great apostasy” then every church - including the LDS Church - has apostasized.
Regarding your questioning of the Montanists, they were early schismatics with heretical ideas. Read about it here…
Montanists - Catholic New Advent Website
And in Carl Olsen’s book “Will Catholics be ‘Left Behind’” he discusses early millenarianism and chiliasm in the Church. Prominent among the early millenarians were the Montanists. (Olsen, supra, p. 143.)
You also wrote:
This is quite a straw man argument you’ve erected here. See the attached link to understand the jewish messianic connection to the millenium.
Millenium and Millenarianism - Catholic New Advent Website
Early belief in the Millenium does not establish its orthodoxy or its truth, just as evidence of early and widespread belief in Arianism and Gnosticism does not establish the orthodoxy or truth of those beliefs.
The issue comes down to one of authority. The Church is the institution with authority. The Church has been consistent in its *teaching * on the issue. Millenarianism is simply not sound.
M
majick275
Guest
No Catholic dictionary can supersede the catechism. That would be a far better reference for actual Catholic doctrine.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I already quoted the Catechism. amgid apparently dismissed it. Here it is again, with citation to the underlying source material for verification.
- Status