The fresco of The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel, by Michelangelo
Whilst reading a customer review of Stephen Walford's intriguing new book on Catholic eschatology Heralds of the Second Coming (which I hope to be able to cover in more detail myself in the near future), I was surprised to note that he was criticised by a reader for failing to adhere to the concept of a purported future Eucharistic Reign of Christ. The idea of a future Eucharistic Reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years after an intermediate Paraousia (during which time Our Lord would supposedly rule invisibly on earth from heaven), is a concept which was first proposed in the writings of contemporary Catholic theologian Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi. It is of great importance here to realise that this work should be considered separately from the traditional Catholic amillennialist of the Apocalypse - a line of interpretation which has been followed by mainstream theologians since St. Augustine first clearly elucidated the true meaning of the millennium in the Book of Revelation.
According to Fr. Iannuzzi and his followers, who like the Protestant dispensationalists, hold to an overly literal view of the chronology of the Book of Revelation, there will a thousand year millenary reign of Christ following the defeat of the Antichrist - a historic triumph of the Church which is to be equated with the era of peace foretold in the Secret of Fatima. Much in line with the postmillennial view forwarded by some Protestant commentators, Fr. Iannuzzi suggests that after this glorious future thousand year reign of Christ is over, Satan will once again be let loose from his chains during his "little while" in order to deceive the inhabitants of the earth, before finally being thrown into the lake of fire by Christ at his final Coming.
In an attempt to lend his argument an air of credibility, Fr. Iannuzzi relies on the writings of a select few of the early Church Fathers before St. Augustine who had adhered to the concept of a future millennial reign of Christ on earth. Yet although some of the early Church Fathers clearly forwarded millenarian/chiliastic views, they were not viewed by later theologians to be heretical, since they had lived in an age before the Holy Spirit revealed the true meaning of the millennium to the Church in the writings of St. Augustine. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the full truth of Scripture is something that is only revealed to the Church in stages over the course of the centuries:
Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
(CCC 66)
So the evident chiliasm in the writings of some of the early Church Fathers can be put down to the fact did not yet possess any special insight into parts of Scripture that were still not fully illuminated by the Holy Spirit. They were merely attempting to make the best sense they could out of what is one of the most mysterious aspects of Christian eschatology. But after St. Augustine had revealed that the millennial reign of Christ started with His earthly ministry and that it encompassed the age of the Church, the chiliastic idea that Christ would reign for a thousand years with the saints on earth was subsequently recognised as a dangerous heresy which unduly emphasised the importance of the worldly realm over the spiritual. This was in keeping with Christ's declaration that "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).
Fr. Iannuzzi attempts to bypass the charge of millenarianism by making a distinction between Christ reigning visibly on earth in the flesh for a thousand years (which is the straight, undiluted form of chiliasm), from the notion that he could reign invisibly for a thousand years from heaven in His presence in the Eucharist. This slight modification of millenarian ideas has enabled his work to escape from being immediately condemned by the Church. Stephen Walford contends in his book Heralds of the Second Coming that Fr. Iannuzzi's work falls into the category of "mitigated millenarianism", which was ruled out by Pius XII in 1944. I would argue that Fr. Iannuzzi's work is an example of the "modified forms" of millenarianism condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
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 judgement. 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.
(CCC 676)
Ever since St. Augustine of Hippo presented his understanding of the Apocalypse in the monumental work City of God, Catholic theologians have unswervingly adhered to the amillennialist position, which holds that the "millennium" began with the binding of Satan in the ministry of Christ, and that this "1000 years" symbolises the age of the Church as the kingdom of Christ on earth. For Catholics, Christ is already the King who reigns from heaven forever, and has done since the Incarnation - we do not need to wait until some point in the future for His millennial reign from heaven. Indeed accepting the amillennialist position outlined by St. Augustine (who as a doctor of the Church, is considered by Catholic theologians to be the ultimate authority on this matter) is a vital key to understanding the significance of the "little while" given to Satan - when he is unleashed after the "1000 years" are over. I believe that this "little while" of the unbinding of the Devil directly corresponds to the period of the Great Apostasy and Pope Leo XIII's vision of the 100 years of Satan's greater power, and is consequently related to the horrors of the 20th century.
Given that there are a significant number of Catholics who follow Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi's concept of a millennial Eucharistic Reign of Christ on earth after the defeat of the Antichrist, I thought I should link to a more critical (and orthodox) review of his one of his books - The Splendor of Creation, before commenting in some more detail on St. Augustine's view of the millennium in a later post.
The full review can be found at newtorah.org. I'll post a section of it below:
The author’s main purpose in this book is to convince us that, in the very near future, we will witness a historical and universal ‘era of peace’, driven by a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as at Pentecost: “As humankind enters the third millennium, it will witness an explosion of mystical gifts, particularly that of ‘Living in the Divine Will’. By means of this most powerful gift that elevates man’s internal powers to God’s continuously eternal activity, all creation will be set free from its former slavery to corruption and glory and enjoy the glorious freedom of the sons of God. This liberating process of man and the cosmos introduces God’s sons and daughters to the splendor of creation, where a ‘new Pentecost’ will assist his creatures to live in harmony and in holiness.”(pp. 187-188).
He sets out to persuade us of this attractive prospect by arguing that the ‘era of peace’ (an expression taken from the Fatima apparitions in 1917, see note 22) has been prophesied by a formidable array of authoritative sources since the early days of the Church, and has been further confirmed and clarified over the last century in the ‘approved’ writings of a variety of Catholic mystics. He quotes extensively from the writings of these mystics, especially when explaining how the Holy Spirit’s work of divinization will bring all men to behave peacefully, during the imminent ‘era of peace’, through a voluntary and loving adherence to the divine will. The strength of this book lies in the author’s evident desire for the imminent ‘era of peace’ and his ardent conviction that this ‘period of triumphant Christianity’ corresponds to Christ’s reign of one thousand years prophesied in chapter 20 of the book of Revelation. One hesitates to criticize a book that anticipates such a pleasant and painless interim for the Church and for mankind, but it must be said that the force of the author’s conviction should not obscure our vision of the truth and our understanding of reality. Even though a host of worthy churchmen and women may wish for Christianity to be seen to triumph in this world, and for this triumph to be expressed in a historical and lengthy ‘era of peace’, one must seriously consider whether their wish truly conforms to reality, or whether it simply reflects a form of ecclesiastical idealism, or wishful thinking, that has become isolated from the ‘real world’, and especially from the ugly presence of unforgivable or ‘eternal’ sin (cf. Mk 3,29; Mt 12,32; 1Jn 5,16-17; Heb 6,4-6; 10,26-31; Rev 16,9-11.21). Given that this kind of sin can only be removed from the creation at the final judgment, and also that it is implacably hostile to God’s kingdom, it follows that before the final judgment there can be no historical realization, or consummation, of God’s kingdom. In the symbolical language of the book of Revelation, this means that the chaining of Satan in the abyss during the ‘millennium’ does not stop him from exerting his influence through spiritual (angelic) deputies and willing humans. In this way Satan is still able to oppose the Kingdom of God and impede its full realization. This is confirmed by the Catechism when it says “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…God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world” (CCC 677b). So instead of the ‘historic triumph of the Church’ we should rather expect that “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” (CCC 677a). The inescapable conclusion is that the long-awaited and greatly desired consummation of God’s kingdom will be attainable only through a grueling persecution of the Church followed closely by the final judgment. The author’s ‘era of peace’ is exposed as a pious pipedream, an illusory escape from the hard realities that we should even now be spiritually preparing for. Far from being a miraculous placebo inducing a global ‘era of peace’ and a ‘historic triumph of the Church’, the new Pentecost (Rev 8:5) is actually granted to the Church to prepare and strengthen her for the last and greatest tribulation she will ever have to face, “her final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” (CCC 677a), a persecution that to all the world will seem like a humiliating defeat. Related to this general theological objection to the author’s proposal for an imminent, historical ‘era of peace’, is the claim that it represents the millennial rule of Christ with his saints described in chapter 20 of the book of Revelation. Throughout the book, the author takes pains to distinguish his futuristic interpretation of the millennium from the various forms of millennialism that the Church has robustly condemned (chapter 7). Although he does not spell it out, the author’s proposal clearly conforms to the class of interpretations defined as ‘postmillennial’, which is to say that it expects the Second Coming of Christ to occur after a millennial ‘era of peace and triumphant Christianity’. One great weakness of his work is that he does not deal with the classical objections to this form of interpretation, namely that New Testament writers do not anticipate a millennial age to dawn on earth. As noted recently by a Protestant Scholar, “There is no biblical evidence that the nations as a whole will become Christianized. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case. After all, we read the great lament of our Lord. “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8). Indeed the Bible teaches that Christ will judge the nations when he returns because of their unbelief and hostility toward his kingdom (Matt. 25:31-32; Rev. 19:15; 20:11-12). It is hard to attribute this deplorable condition to a brief period of apostasy after Jesus Christ and his saints have ruled over these nations for a thousand years and, according to postmillennial expectations, the nations have become Christianized. Therefore, postmillennial expectations do not fit easily with the New Testament’s emphasis on our Lord’s return to judge the unbelieving world.” (A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, Kim Riddlebarger, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; Leicester, UK: IVP, 2003, p.237). And again, “But postmillenarians err when they attempt to locate the triumph of the kingdom in the Christianizing of the nations and the economic, cultural, and religious progress associated with an earthly millennium. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. But one day, John said, the kingdoms of the world will “become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev. 11:15). That day will come when Jesus Christ returns but not before.” (op.cit. p. 239). Rev. Iannuzzi may be correct in asserting that postmillennial interpretations have not yet been censured by the Church’s Magisterium, but he appears to be blissfully unaware of the fact that they are not consistent with rest of the New Testament. While arguing against other interpretations of the millennium in chapter seven of his book, the author rather too hastily sweeps aside the traditional amillennialist view, according to which the millennium corresponds to the present Church age: “Not only did the Amillenarians disavow belief in the Pre- and Postmillenarians’ literal views of biblical eschatology, they denied and opposed the possibility of the magisterial ‘historic period of triumphant Christianity’. Needless to say, the Magisterium condemned their beliefs due to faulty interpretations of the 20th Chapter of the book of Revelation.” (p.200). This comment is contentious for several reasons: firstly because the Magisterium has never declared itself in favour of a ‘historic period of triumphant Christianity’ as the author claims. On the contrary, the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that “…the kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church…” (CCC 677) as already seen above. Secondly, it should be observed that the author’s lengthy descriptions of the proposed future ‘era of peace’ are equally applicable to the present Church age (e.g. ‘the first resurrection’, pp. 69-72). In this way, the author goes a long way in recognizing the arguments in favour of the amillennial interpretation. Thirdly, to the best of my knowledge, the Magisterium has never condemned the amillennialist interpretation of Rev. 20, and is never likely to condemn it, because this was the interpretation long ago proposed by St. Augustine (City of God, book 20, chs. 7-10) and adopted by the Church to oppose millennialism. Noteworthy in this regard is the absence of a reference in the endnotes to any document confirming this erroneous assertion. This last objection raises doubts about the veracity of the author in promoting his ‘era of peace’. Regrettably, there are several other instances in this book where the author seems to be drawing false conclusions from his sources. He does this, deliberately it would seem, by selectively quoting from the writings of ancient authors, in order to make them appear to support his postmillennial ‘era of peace’, even though they do not. In some cases this means hiding dissonant features and, in other cases, inventing consonant features.... (Read the full article here).
152 comments:
Thank you for this because I was confused about this idea of an era of peace supposedly coming after antichrist. One question: where and when do you think the era of peace predicted at fatima comes in?
Catherine
Hi Catherine,
I believe we are at the start of the era of peace in the New Pentecost. The only approved apparition which mentions the duration of the era of peace is La Salette. And it states that it will not last a long time:
"Before all that arrives, great disorders will arrive, in the Church, and everywhere. Then, after [that], our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted. His successor will be a pontiff that nobody expects.
Then, after [that], a great peace will come, but it will not last a long time. A monster will come to disturb it."
(Our Lady to Maximin Giruad)
So according to Maximin, the era of peace is directly before the reign of the Antichrist, and will not last a long time. Melanie goes into the era of peace as well:
"A great king will go up on the throne, and will reign many years. Religion will re-flourish and spread all over the world, and there will be a great abundance. The world, glad to be lacking nothing, will fall again into disorder, will give up God, and will return to its criminal passions."
(Our Lady to Melanie Calvat)
Interesting. How long is "not a long time" though? Are we talking 3 years, 30 years, 300 years, etc?
Thanks for the post about amillenialism vs the various forms of chiliasm though. I've come across this "Eucharistic reign" before and thought it was unscriptural too.
Thank you very much, Emmett, for this very informative piece. I have been somewhat confused by the various claims of the millennium, and always thought that the Church had rejected that idea.
I just read a post by Mark Mallett on Fr Iunizzi's book. He was greatly influenced by the mystic Luisa Piccaretta. But it seems her writings are under some sort of ecclesiastical ban. Mallett says it is similar to the ban on St Faustina's writings for a while, which may be so. But still it seems to be a red flag. What you write here about it makes much more sense.
Emmett,
I don't think St. Augustine's interpretation of the Millennium is "the true meaning of the millennium in the Book of Revelation."
The Church has not yet ruled definitively on the true interpretation of the Millennium, a fact that Rev. Iannuzzi points out in one of his books by quoting then Cardinal Ratzinger who stated in a 1990 interview with theologian Fr. Martino Penasa that, "the Holy See has not yet made any definitive pronouncement in this regard."
In the book "Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine (1952)" we find this statement:
"The coming of Christ in the second Advent...is the consummation of all things, the end of human history. If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about, not by the apparition of the Person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church."
St. Augustine's interpretation of the Millennium is the popular interpretation, but by no means the definitive or majority opinion of the early Church Fathers.
The Church has told us what the Millennium IS NOT: LITERAL 1000 years, Christ reigns IN THE FLESH prior to the Second Coming, accompanied by CARNAL delights.
The Church has not yet ruled on just what the Millennium is.
St. Methodius of Olympus, bishop and martyr, speaks of the eight ages of the world:
"Five are the ages of the old law, the sixth age [our present age] is designated to the Church, the seventh is the millennium of rest, and the eighth designates the eternity of heaven."
The Nicene Father, Tertullian, writes that:
"We do confess that a kingdom is promised to us UPON THE EARTH, although BEFORE heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem..."
The Church Father, St. Justin Martyr, writes that:
"Moreover, a man among us named John, one of Christ's Appostles, received and foretold that the followers of Christ would dwell in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and that AFTERWARDS the universal and, in short, everlasting resurrection and judgement would take place."
Hi Emmett,
How can we be at the start of the Era of Peace? There will never be peace on earth until our Blessed Mother crushes the head of the serpent. I wouldn't wait on the Catholic Church to approve apparitions. Pray to the Holy Spirit for the gift of discernment. I am upset that I only heard of St. Faustina and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy that Jesus taught her in 1995! Jesus gave her that beautiful prayer in the the '30's! My mother went to Catholic school her whole life and never was taught about the appariton of Guadalupe. That upset her. You don't think Jesus is sending modern-day prophets into our world? Who do you think is a valid prophet? There has to be some out there? Don't wait for the Catholic church to approve any apparition quickly! I feel like if I prayed the chaplet as a child or teenager, I would have been a better person for it. There has to be a better way. And thanks to Jesus for giving me the gift of discernment because I don't have to wait around for the Catholic Church to decide what's valid or not. Jesus always answers prayers of His humble servants.
A Eucharistic Adorer
Those who hold to Fr. Iannuzzi's position (which I tend to hold to myself, though I am open either way) do not believe in a literal 1000 year reign. I guess that is one interpretation (that the Holy Spirit revealed the true meaning of the millenium to St. Augustine, and everything prior to that was speculation) However, some of the quotes from the early Fathers don't sound much like speculation, such as this one from St. Irenaeus:
"So, the blessing foretold undoubtedly refers to the time of His Kingdom, when the just will rule on rising from the dead; when creation, reborn and freed from bondage, will yield an abundance of foods of all kinds from the heaven’s dew and the fertility of the earth, just as the seniors recall. Those who saw John, the Lord’s disciple, [tell us] that they heard from him how the Lord taught and spoke about these times… "
The other basic storyline would be that the original idea of the Era of Peace was lost amid wild interpretations of what it would be, which is Mark Mallett's position as stated in this writing:
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/how-the-era-was-lost/
Although Emmett is intending to write something concerning my book Heralds of the Second Coming, I would like to point out several things in relation to the comments so far. First we need to be careful about the so called quote of Cardinal Ratzinger concerning the Millennium theory used by Fr Iannuzzi. In His book he does not say what the question actually was. I once read a talk given by Fr Stefano Gobbi in which he mentioned this question of Fr Penasa, but significantly, the question was "how are we to understand the return of Jesus in glory-as King or Judge". Now that is a totally different question and obviously can be taken either way just as Cardinal Ratzinger stated. In my book I have devoted a section in the last chapter which shows the contradiction between Fr Ianuzzi'z thesis and that of the papal magisterium-for instance biblical passages that are used to explain the Millenium are in the writings of the popes referring to the renewal to come after the Last judgment when the new heaven and new earth arrive.
In terms of Luisa Piccaretta, her cause has been hijacked by over zealous supporters of the millennium theory, when in actual fact the writings appear to describe humanity in its glorified state. As Jesus says, it will be the fullfiment of the Our Father- and as the Catechism states, this only comes with the Lord's final coming when the Kingdom comes in it's fullness.
Anon - giving that the Book of Revelation tells us that the Antichrist puts to death the Two Witnesses, who are responsible for bringing about the Second Pentecost/era of peace, then this would make duration of this period in shorter figures. There is thus perhaps just a few decades in between the coming of the Two Witnesses to bring about the Second Pentecost/era of peace, until the arrival of the Antichrist. This would closely follow the events of the first Pentecost, which was presided over by St. Peter - who is a precursor to one of the Two Witnesses (the Angelic Pope?). St. Peter was put to death by Nero (the precursor to the Antichrist) just a few decades after the first Pentecost.
The whole purpose of the Second Pentecost is to strengthen the faith at the end time and proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth before the Second Coming of Christ - not to usher in a prolonged era of peace. Christ explicitly states that the end will come directly after the Gospel has been spread to the ends of the earth in the Second Pentecost:
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
(Matt 24:14)
The end will come right away after the spread of the Gospel in the Second Pentecost - not a thousand years later. It is in this renewal that the Bride of Christ prepares herself for the coming of the Groom, who will bring judgment to the earth in His final glorious appearance.
Thanks Emmett for your insight. Hasn't the gospel been spread to all ends of the earth by television and radio? What more can be done to spread the gospel? Any ideas? Bibles can be printed and shipped, I imagine, most any where in the world. That would be spreading the gospel, do you think?Does anyone have full knowledge of the Book of Revelations?
Hi Sr. Lorraine,
The inclusion of material that can be interpreted as being chiliastic in nature is most likely one of the main reasons for the Moratorium on the writings of Luisa Piccaretta, and why they were initially placed on the Index of forbidden books. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that the nihil obstat given regarding her cause for beatification was given independently of her writings.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/luisa_piccarreta.htm
This is much like when Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich was beatified - because her writings were thought to have been corrupted and embellished in places by the poet Clemens Brentano.
Hi Miltonic and Dave - I knew you would love this post! :)
Thanks for sharing that information Stephen regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's interview with Fr. Martino Penasa, and the oft cited words: "the Holy See has not yet made any definitive pronouncement in this regard."
I didn't realise that the original question was "how are we to understand the return of Jesus in glory-as King or Judge?". That is quite different indeed...
The continuation of the review of Fr. Iannuzzi's work quoted above shows how he can be quite selective in the inclusion of the material used to support his modified form of millenarianism:
" 1. On pp. 49-53 the author presents selected passages from chapters 14 and 24 of the seventh book of The Divine Institutes of Lactantius in support of a forthcoming ‘era of peace’, saying that they provide “what is perhaps the finest exposition on the universal era of peace in early tradition”(p.51). In the same breath, the author assures us that Lactantius is not describing a heretical millenarian ‘era of peace’, since his expression “‘He [Christ] will be engaged among men a thousand years’ is a far cry from the millenarian vision, which teaches that Christ will come visibly and physically to reign on earth within human history”(p.51). However, in chapter 19 of The Divine Institutes, book VII, Lactantius clearly speaks about a physical descent of Christ, leading to the defeat of the antichrist and his armies: “For He is the Deliverer, and Judge, and Avenger, and King, and God, whom we call Christ, who before He descends will give this sign: There shall suddenly fall from heaven a sword, that the righteous may know that the leader of the sacred warfare is about to descend, and He shall descend with a company of angels to the middle of the earth…”. If there is still some doubt about the physicality of this descent, it is removed in the following passage, where Christ, the king, is represented as being physically present at a certain place: “But other princes also and tyrants who have harassed the world, together with him [the antichrist], shall be led in chains to the king; and he shall rebuke them, and reprove them, and upbraid them with their crimes, and condemn them, and consign them to deserved tortures”. In the context of this physical description of Christ’s descent and presence on earth, the expression about Christ “engaged among men a thousand years” must be interpreted physically. Another strongly millenarian feature of ‘The Divine Institutes’ is the anticipation of the physical resurrection of the righteous at the beginning of this millennium, “Therefore they will not be born again, which is impossible, but they will rise again, and be clothed by God with bodies, and will remember their former life, and all its actions…”(book VII, ch. 23). In summary, Lactantius, in his Divine Institutes, is indeed advancing a form of millennialism that was later rejected by the Church, and is called ‘historic premillennialism’ by modern scholars."
Emmett,
I don't really see that it makes that much practical difference anyway. In one scenario, we face the scourge of the Antichrist and then the Last Judgment directly. In the other, we face the scourge of Antichrist and then the "Era of Peace" comes for a time, followed by a short release of Satan again and then the Last Judgment.
I don't view the "Era of Peace" theory as "wishful thinking" - wouldn't the Last Judgment and the complete and utter end of evil be a better scenario for us?
Either way, we are in for some very tough times, in which it may be required for us to give up our lives, followed (for those who survive) by some sort of great victory.
If I survive these times, I will rejoice when Christ delivers us victory regardless of the exact form it takes.
God bless!
VTA?
Emmett,
I agree with most of what you say, I just disagree that St. Augustine's interpretation of the Millennium as the "church age" or the time between the Incarnation and Second Coming, is by any means the definitive interpretation. It is one interpretation - one that St. Augustine wasn't even settled on as he wrestled with various ways of interpreting the Millennium in De Civitate Dei.
Here is the quote from Rev. Iannuzzi's book "The Triumph of God's Kingdom in the Millennium and End Times: A Proper Belief from the Truth in Scripture and Church Teachings" regarding the interview with Ratzinger:
"Indeed, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made a noteworthy pronouncement in recognizing that the issue of an age to come before the final return of Christ is not yet concluded. A few years ago, Fr. Martino Penasa, an eminent theologian, presented this eschatological matter of Christ’s millenary reign (not millenarianism) to the Cardinal, who reassured him that the matter is still open to discussion: "Giacche la Santa Sede non si e ancora pronunciata in modo definitivo" [the Holy See has not yet made any definitive pronouncement in this regard] (E imminente una nuova era di vita Cristiana?, Padre Martino Penasa, Il Segno del Soprannaturale, Udine, Italia, n. 30, p. 10, Ott. 1990). What the Holy See has definitively pronounced is an anathema against a "false" millennium, known as millenarianism: a heresy accepted by some who professed a belief in a carnal and visible reign of Christ for a period lasting literally 1000 years."
Rev. Iannuzzi clarifies the difference between the Millennium and the heresy of Millenarianism:
"Early on, Jewish converts to Christianity ushered in a heretical doctrine known as Chiliasm: this heresy is predicated upon the professed belief that Christ would come down to earth to reign in the flesh with his saints for literally 1000 years amidst immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as to surpass the measure of credulity itself…Later Christian authors fell into adopting the purely speculative eusebian theory: that Papias’ writings on the temporal kingdom were influenced by such Jews…Eusebius, an historian known for his lack of theological refinement, would set the precedent which would exercise an impressive influence over several theologians during the following centuries. In fact, the Catholic Church regards him not for his theological import, which is quite poor, but rather for his contributions as an historian…Some theologians inadvertently adopted Eusebius’ speculative approach as an arsenal of argument, being largely influenced by his interpretation of the millennium. Subsequently, these ideologues associated everything and anything that borders on a millennium with Chiliasm, resulting in an unhealed breach in the field of eschatology that would remain for a time, like an ubiquitous stricture, attached to the salient word millennium…Dismissing all possibility of a millennium, predicated on the basis of a speculative and theoretical assessment of the early Church Fathers’ writings [Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,Tertullian, Hippolytus], is not sound theology. Indeed it contrasts with early Church Tradition, and by no means affords Catholics the ability to unequivocally dismiss the reality of a "holy age to come" or a true millennium (as opposed to the condemned false millenarianism)."
Just a sidenote regarding Rev. Iannuzzi: I am not really his biggest fan (his associating with Vassula Ryden is cause for concern) but in this matter of the Millennium, I believe his writings are a well-researched service, but even Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation is just that - an interpretation and by no means definitive until the Church makes a decision in this regard.
Emmet,
I think, Your chronology in La Salette mesagge is reversed. It is:
"Nations will convert, the faith will return everywhere. A large country in northern Europe, today Protestant, will be converted: by the support of this country, all the other countries of the world will be converted. Before all that arrives, great disorders will arrive in the Church, and everywhere. Then after [that], our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted. His successor will be a pontiff that no one expects. Then after [that] a great peace will come, but it will not last long. A monster will come to disturb it.
Everything I say here will arrive in the next century, [by] the year two thousand (literally – later to two thousand years).”
Maybe the unexpected pope was JPII, who calmed the disorders after VATII (with 3 popes in year of his election and the strange death of JPI), but the calm didn't last and the persecution of church restarted (action of monster?). However, the chronology of short-time calm and global conversions seems to me to be reversed.
I think Emmitt has it right.
Statement: "Nations will convert, the faith will return everywhere. A large country in northern Europe, today Protestant, will be converted: by the support of this country, all the other countries of the world will be converted.
1. Before all that arrives, great disorders will arrive in the Church, and everywhere.
2. Then after [that], our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted. His successor will be a pontiff that no one expects.
3. Then after [that] a great peace will come, but it will not last long. A monster will come to disturb it. "Great Peace" must refer to the opening statement.
If JPII were the Pope no one expects... Which protestant country converted? Let's not jump ahead here.
We are/or have been in #1 for sure... Maybe JPII is the begining of #2 but we cannot know until we see the conversions. It could be that this Pope is the begining of the latter part of stage #2 as he is almost certainly going to experience persecution but may also usher in #3. I think we will not know until the pews start filling up.
My understanfing of Chronology:
1/ „Great disorders will arrive, in the Church, and everywhere.“
2/ „Then, after [that], our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted. His successor will be a pontiff that nobody expects.“
3/ „Then, after [that], a great peace will come, but it will not last a long time. A monster will come to disturb it.“
4/ All this will happen before „nations will convert, the faith will be rekindled everywhere. A great country, now Protestant, in the north of Europe, will be converted; by the support of this country all the other nations of the world will be converted.“
Point 4 is to happen.
Pronoun "that" in "after that" may refer to events in immediataly preceding sentence.
And, the mesagges refer dominantly to 20th century. "Everything I say here will arrive in the next century..."
Your interpretation is almost all about the 21th century (or next centuries).
Thanks fed!
Hi feri,
I think our interpretations aren't really that far apart. I'll attempt to answer in some more depth tomorrow when I have more time. And I'll try to respond to the other comments I haven't answered yet as well.
I'm wondering if the "country in Northern Europe" that would convert could possibly be Germany? I'm an American, so I don't know if you Europeans consider Germany to be North or Western Europe (or both?).
Certainly the comment that it was "now Protestant" could be Germany. The whole Protestant Revolution started there.
But since it said within 100 years, it certainly can't refer to today or the future. And we have to ask if "convert" necessarily means "convert to Catholicism"?
It seems to me that when Hitler came to power he took the country into atheism and communism. Likewise, at Fatima, we were told that Russia would fall into communism and later "convert." So both Russia and the Northern European country "convert." Does this have to mean convert to Catholicism? Or can it simply mean to convert from atheistic communism and back to Christianity in general?
Because, as already stated, Hitler took Germany into atheistic communism, but the country repented and turned back to Christianity-- though certainly not to where it was before. We also know for certain that Russia's heresy was atheistic communism, and Fatima said they would "convert" from it.
So perhaps La Salette refers to Germany and its conversion from Communism after WWII; and Fatima talks about Russia's conversion from atheism and communism after the "Triumph of my Immaculate Heart"?
Thanks Feri
You give me some things to consider. I never put a lot of stock in timing because the predictions often involve time lines that are contingent upon the response of the faithful. However, it is good to revisit the statements and try to see if they fit in the original timeline. I'm not convinced that you have the order of events correct but there is some ambiguity there. I shall take your opinion serious and see where it leads me. Thanks again.
Speaking of timelines and chronology, does anyone else notice that the Millennium (the "thousand years" mentioned in Revelation 20) falls between the defeat of the false prophet and the defeat of Gog-Magog? There is a clear line of demarcation here. Not every portion of the Book of Revelation is literal or chronological, but I think chapters 19-20 are chronological and the defeat of the false prophet and Gog-Magog are literal events.
The end of Rev 19 depicts the Second Coming of Jesus, who defeats the false prophet. It even depicts the OT prophecy of the Messiah with His robes covered in blood, with the birds gorging on the defeated enemies flesh.
So if you want to put 1,000 years between the defeat of the False Prophet and Gog/Magog, then you have to have three comings of Christ or a 1,000 year millennial chiliasm.
Keith,
The end of Rev 19 depicts the defeat of the false prophet and the leaders and armies of the earth who had worshiped and served the beast. They are all defeated by "the sword of the rider, which came out of his mouth".
Clearly, this is not the Second Coming, as the Second Coming is the end of history and Chapter 19 ends with the start of the Millennium and the events of Chapter 20.
The defeat of the false prophet and his armies is a literal defeat, but the manner in which they are defeated seems to be allegorical (clearly, a "sword is not literally coming out of Christ's mouth).
In Rev 19 the defeat of the False Prophet and Beast is not done by the Second Coming of Christ? Really?
Rev 19: "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and HIS NAME IS THE WORD OF GOD. . . Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KING AND LORD OF LORDS."
Sorry, but Jesus is the only King of King and Lord of Lords, and the only one named "the Word of God."
Also, the "treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God," the "clothes dipped in blood," the "treads the winepress," and "the sharp sword coming out of His mouth" are four Messianic prophecies from the OT, all discussing the conquering Messiah-- the one the Jews are still waiting for.
Miltonic,
I think you will find that the Rider on the White Horse destroys the Beast as well as the False Prophet at the end of Rev 19:
"And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And THE BEAST was captured, AND with it the FALSE PROPHET who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These TWO were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.
(Rev 19:19-20)
Although a lot of this is metaphorical - I don't think that Christ will personally slay these individuals, but rather issue the judgments (with the sword of His mouth), that cause their destruction. And it does refer to the defeat of the Antichrist at Second Coming - as we can gather from comparing this passage with 2 Thess 2:8:
"And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming."
(2 Thess 2:8)
This means you can't argue that it is the False Prophet who is destroyed before the Millennium begins, with the Antichrist being destroyed at the end of the Millennium. You would have to either posit two Antichrists (one at the start and one at the end of the Millennium), or the Antichrist and the False Prophet being killed at the start of the Millennium, followed by the destruction of Satan himself on earth at the end of the Millennium. The "Doctrine of the Millennium" forwarded by Fr. Iannuzzi(which is really just modified millenarianism) would also require a Second and a Third Coming of Christ.
Hi Eucharistic Adorer,
There is a wealth of evidence, both from prophecy and heavenly portents, that the head of the Serpent has already been crushed at the turn of the millennium. The head of the Serpent is crushed by the Woman Adorned with the Sun when Satan is cast to earth during the eschatological age. The Book of Revelation tells us that once he has been cast to earth, Satan rises from the sea in the form of the Beast with seven heads (the Antichrist) - one of which bears the mortal head wound from being crushed under the heel of the Woman:
"And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority. One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast.
(Rev 13:1-3)
There are definitely some authentic seers out there at the moment. But before I would be willing to believe such claims absolutely before Church approval, I think they would have to be associated with an irrefutable miracle of undeniable supernatural origin - e.g. something like the Miracle of the Sun, the miracle of the doves, extraordinary healings, exact fulfilments of prophecy etc. If a seer has something truly important to say, it is usually accompanied by such phenomena.
Miltonic,
I do respect your position, but
the Church has ruled definitively on the Millennium in the Catechism - one of the highest sources of authority in the Church. The following is taken from the United States Conference of Bishops:
"Q. Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?
A. By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center."
So even if Fr. Iannuzzi hadn't used that quote attributed to Card. Ratzinger out of context, and he was referring to the Church's position on the Millennium (rather than the actual context, which was being asked whether Christ would come as King or Judge at the Second Coming), you would have to take into consideration that these words were spoken before the Church formally outlined its position on the Millennium in the Catechism.
The quote you cite below is taken from a book written by a priest, and isn't an official Church document:
"In the book "Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine (1952)" we find this statement:
"The coming of Christ in the second Advent...is the consummation of all things, the end of human history. IF BEFORE THAT FINAL END THERE IS TO BE A PERIOD, MORE OR LESS PROLONGED, OF TRIUMPHANT SANCTITY, such a result will be brought about, not by the apparition of the Person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church."
The Catechism specifically states that there will not be a historic triumph of the Church, but rather that the Church will only enter the kingdom of God through its final Passion (the persecution under the Antichrist) - which was foreseen in the Third Secret:
"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 Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world."
Thanks Emmett for answering me back. Not all seers have public phenomena during the time of their receiving divine messages. There have been private miracles associated with some seers. One seer that comes to my mind is St. Faustina. I don't think we can put limits onto chosen prophets. God can do as He pleases and sees fit as to how He wants to get heavenly messages out to His children. I think we can define "miracles" in many different ways. One miracle could be a sudden conversion and a turning away from sin by God's children. Another miracle could be a mass of people praying devoutly for an extended period of time. God can communicate to His people any way He chooses. We just have to ask Him for the gift of discernment to help guide us to the true prophecies. He does give out these graces to souls that are completely obedient to Him. Peace of mind and soul only come from God, fear comes from satan.
We have different takes on the Book of Revelations. No one knows its full contents but I understand that Our Blessed Mother will crush the head of the serpent right before the Second Coming. Many people have differnet views on this, but we must turn to Jesus to instruct our souls. We must not let our intellect get in the way because we know absolutely nothing next to Jesus. The only thing that I really know is that Jesus is alive in the Eucharist and that I love Him and that I am eternally grateful for His sufferings for me. All the rest, I leave up to Jesus to instruct me.
Emmett,
The Catechism does not mention the word Millennium once that I am aware of. It mentions the heresy of millenariansm.
The Kingdom of God is already present. You make the mistake of equating the glorious fulfillment of the Kingdom with the Millennium.
The Millennium is a reality, since it is specifically Revealed in Sacred Scripture. The Church has not interpreted it definitively, a point Cardinal Ratzinger made in the interview I cited. The Church has told us what it IS NOT, not what IT IS.
The Millennium IS NOT synonymous with the glorious fulfillment of the Kingdom, which will happen (as you correctly point out) at the Second Coming.
The Millennium has been equated with the Era of Peace foretold at Fatima which, again, is not synonymous with the glorious fulfillment of the Kingdom at the Second Coming.
The book that I cited, "The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine (1952)" was arranged and edited by Can. George D. Smith and bears the Church's required seals (Nihil Obstat Can. Mahoney, S.T.D.; Imprimatur E. Morrogh Bernard)
Emmett,
Regarding the Antichrist and the Millennium, if the interpretation of the Millennium as the "church age" is correct then it begs the question: Who was the False Prophet and when was he defeated?
Now, above you say that I, "can't argue that it is the False Prophet who is destroyed before the Millennium begins, with the Antichrist being destroyed at the end of the Millennium. You would have to either posit two Antichrists (one at the start and one at the end of the Millennium), or the Antichrist and the False Prophet being killed at the start of the Millennium, followed by the destruction of Satan himself on earth at the end of the Millennium"
To that I respond that the Church teaches us that there will be many antichrists throughout history and one final Antichrist.
Here is how Rev. Iannuzzi answers your question, in his book "Antichrist and the Endtimes":
"The Church's early Tradition identifies the False Prophet and Gog as individual antichrists, and the Beast and Magog as their collective spirit or host of evil nations that ensure their rise to power.
St. Vincent Ferrer states that the False Prophet is the precursor to the final and fiercest Antichrist [Gog] who arises after the Era of Peace: 'When the false prophet, the precursor of Antichrist comes, all who are not confirmed will apostatize, while those who are confirmed will stand fast in their faith.'
St. Vincent states that there will be two endtime antichrists: purus and mixtus, the former appearing before the period of universal peace and the latter following. His statement seems to second St. Hippolytus' definition of the false prophet of Rev. 20 who arises 'before' the era of peace. This may explain his placement of the false prophet (purus) 'before'Satan's final appearance after the era of peace (mixtus), both of whom he refers to as 'antichrists.'"
Now, Emmett, regarding the idea that Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation (which you incorrectly label above as modified millenarianism") requires three comings of Christ in the flesh, this is incorrect. Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation does not require three comings of Christ in the Flesh. Rev Iannuzzi responds to this point of confusion on pp. 78-79 of his book "The Triumph of God's Kingdom", quoting St. Bernard who said:
"We know that there are three comings of the Lord. The third lies between the other two. It is invisible, while the other two are visible. In the first coming, He was seen on earth, dwelling among men…In the final coming, 'all flesh will see the salvation of our God, and they will look upon Him whom they have pierced.' The intermediate coming is a hidden one; in it only the elect will see the Lord within their own selves, and they are saved. In his first coming, our Lord came in the flesh and in our weakness; in this middle coming, He is our rest and consolation. In case someone should think that this middle coming is sheer invention, listen to what our Lord Himself says: 'If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him.'
Bernard, like several of the early Fathers, strongly insists that no one dismiss this "middle coming" as the product of sheer human invention, but rather that they accept it together with the doctrines of the Apostolic Tradition, with which he was acutely familiar."
Regarding St Bernard's three comings,
if you read the interpretation of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI they always explained S
t Bernard as referring to Jesus' continual comings through history through the Sacraments. They never once related it in the way Fr Iannuzzi would have it.
Thanks for pointing that out Stephen!
I'm also uncomfortable with the notion that Christ will only reign invisibly from heaven in the Holy Eucharist at some point in the future, during a "millennium" of triumph for the Church. It seems to me to be a denial that Christ has reigned from heaven and been present with us in the Eucharist since He ascended into heaven. Jesus Himself stated that He would be with the Church always, until the end of the world:
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(Matt 28:18-20)
Christ promised that He would be present and reign over His Church in the Eucharist always - not at some distant point in the future.
Hi Keith,
The country in the north mentioned by Our Lady of La Salette could only really refer to England - since this is the only nation immediatly to the north of France. Germany lies to the east of where Our Lady appeared in La Salette. But you correctly point out that it involves Hitler - since it states that the prophecy of the "Antichrist" Melanie refers to would be fulfilled before 100 years were over. Calculating from the date of the apparition in 1846, before 100 years are over brings us to 1945 - the end of the Second World War and the death of Hitler. Melanie's later (unapproved) version of her secret spoke of a forerunner to the Antichrist. This forerunner to the Antichrist is none other than the False Prophet, who the Book of Revelation depicts as an "anti-Elijah" figure, who prepares the way for the coming of the Antichrist by causing the inhabitants of the earth to construct an idol for themselves - which is identified as the mark of the Beast.
So I believe that the prophecies of La Salette identify Hitler as the False Prophet, and the forerunner to the Antichrist - which answers your question about who the False Prophet is Miltonic.
All modern computer technology (through which is the only possible fulfilment of the prophecy of the mark of the Beast) owes its origins to the acceleration of technology during Second World War - with the development of machines to crack the Enigma code etc. So if Hitler truly was the False Prophet (which is suggested by La Salette), then he really did cause the inhabitants of the earth to fashion the idol which becomes the mark of the Beast, with the development of computers paving the way towards a cashless society.
Miltonic, I really appreciate your input here. You argue Fr. Iannuzzi's case well, and it's good to have the most salient aspects of his position outlined here.
The Catechism's ruling on millenarianism in the section concerning the Second Coming of Christ covers Fr. Iannuzzi's "Doctrine of the Millennium" as well, since they are both the same thing. Fr. Iannuzzi's work is just classical Millenarianism in a slightly modified form, which proposes that Jesus will return invisibly to inaugurate the millennial kingdom of God on earth, rather than in the flesh. Fr. Iannuzzi simply attempts to rebrand his version of Millenarianism as the "Doctrine of the Millennium", so as to avoid immediate condemnation. But in going on to identify his position with several of the Church Fathers who had specifically taught Millenarianism (before it was condemned) - St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Lactantius etc, he makes perfectly clear that his "Doctrine of the Millennium" is exactly the same as the Millenarianism taught by some of the Early Church Fathers, with the slightly modified position that Christ would not rule visibly during this period, but rather invisibly from heaven.
Fr. Iannuzzi's "Doctrine of the Millenium" does not take into account the fact that Christ Himself stated that He would bind Satan during His descent into Hell after the Crucifixion, in order to free the captives imprisoned there:
"Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house."
(Matt 12:29)
"For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does."
(1 Peter 4:6)
Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
(Eph 4:8-10)
As St. Augustine pointed out, it is through the events of the Crucifixion that Satan was bound for the "thousand years":
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
(Rev 20:1-3)
This same teaching of St. Augustine is reflected in the Catechism's teaching on the Second Coming and the significance the powers of Satan being bound by Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross does not mean that the Church would be spared from evil or suffering (which many Millenarians believe will happen during the hypothetical future binding of Satan):
Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. THIS REIGN IS STILL UNDER ATTACK BY THE EVIL POWERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN DEFEATED DEFINITIVELY BY CHRIST'S PASSOVER. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God."
(CCC 671)
The Catechism clearly states here that the Church will always be in travail until the New Creation after the General Resurrection.
I'm new to this site and what you write here is very interesting. If I understand you correctly, you're refuting Fr. Iannuzzi's theory of what will be the "Era of Peace?" Then what is your definition? I disagree with your statement that the head of the serpent has already been crushed by Our Lady. In my personal opinion, I think this is rapidly approaching which is why we're seeing such intensification of evil. The evil one knows that in this age his time is running out and is trying to drag into hell as many souls as he can. The false prophet you speak of could very well be someone like Obama who certainly acts in the spirit of an anti-christ. He embodies the two greatest evils of this time – islam and communism. I think the coming chastisement will purify the earth for a time so the entire world, all nations and peoples, can be brought into the Church. We don’t know how long this new age will last, but after this will begin the final trial.
Hi Siobhan!
Fr. Iannuzzi's theory which equates the era of peace with Satan being bound for a "thousand years", when Christ will rule supreme on earth through the Church is a very minority position. I have to mention again that I do respect Fr. Iannuzzi and those who follow his views. But the amillenialist view of the Apocalypse which has been accepted by the vast majority of Catholic theologians since the time of St. Augustine is a vital key to interpreting the Book of Revelation as a whole. This is why I'm taking the time here to try to outline the traditional Catholic position, which follows St. Augustine's approach.
I believe that the era of peace is the same as the "great peace" mentioned in the approved secrets of Our Lady of La Salette (cited above) - which we are told will not last a long time. It is also to be equated with the Second Pentecost - when the Gospel will be spread to the whole earth before the end of the world (Matt 24:14). The Book of Revelation and the Book of Malachi tell us that the Second Pentecost will be brought about by the Elijah to come - who is one of the Two Witnesses; and at the same time, that the Two Witnesses will be put to death by the Antichrist. So this would also suggest that the era of peace would only last a short time - within the course of an adult's expected life-span.
The fact that Jesus states that the end will come immediately after the Gospel has been spread to the whole earth also suggests a shorter time span for the era of peace. This fits in with the marriage of the Lamb in Rev 19, which tells us that once the bride has been clothed in pure white linen (representing the purification of the Church during the Second Pentecost), she will be ready to meet the Groom.
As the Catechism states, the Second Coming of Christ is only delayed until the conversion of the Jews during the Second Pentecost. Once this happens, an event which is the "time of refreshing", foretold by St. Peter during the First Pentecost, the appointed Christ will be sent to us (not a thousand years later):
"The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."
(CCC 674)
There are very many prophecies which foretold that the head of the Serpent would be crushed at the turn of the millennium. Some of them Church approved, and some by canonised saints (as well as Pope Leo XIII). Also each of the heavenly portents described in the Bible that were foretold to accompany the head of the Serpent being crushed (when Satan would be cast from the heavenly court to earth) all occurred at the turn of the millennium. If you read the blog through in order from the beginning, this might become more evident to you. I think it may help to think of the head of the Serpent being crushed in a similar way to the effects of the powers of Satan being bound by the events of Christ's Crucifixion. There were no immediately obvious signs that Satan had been defeated by Christ on the Cross. Christians were severely persecuted, and the Early Church was almost stamped out by Pagan Rome. But in the broader scope of history, we can see that the changes effected by Christ's Death on the Cross unfolded into something which encompassed the whole of human history. Events which occur on the heavenly plane of existence only become evident on earth after what seems in human terms when a substantial amount of time has passed.
The Second Pentecost can only take place after the head of the Serpent has been crushed. And I believe that we are seeing the first fruits of this event starting to bud now, with the election of Pope Francis - who according to the prophecy of Bl. Tomasuccio de Foligno (and apparently Christ's parable of the 153 fish), is the Angelic Pope who will restore the Church in the New Pentecost.
Emmett,
Thank you for the clarification. We certainly are on the verge of something huge. I hope and pray that Pope Francis will complete the consecration of Russia and the American Bishops will finally obey what Our Lady requested in the 1950's when she asked to be installed in the National Basilica as "Our Lady of America". This is suppose to bring back the USA to God.
Siobhan,
Thanks for your insight.
I just wanted to emphasize that while St. Augustine'sinterpretation of the 1,000 years (the Millennium) mentioned in Revelation 20 is a popular interpretation, it is by no means the definitive interpretation of the Millennium. The Church has told us what the Millennium is NOT, but the Church has not yet given a definitive interpretation of the Millennium. St. Augustine actually wrestled with various interpretations of the Millennium in his De Civitate Dei, and says:
"Those who, on the strength of this passage [Rev. 220:1-6], have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specifically by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period, a holy lesiure after the labors of six thousand years since man was created...and there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years[not literal, but an extended period of time]; and that it is for this purpose the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath. And this opinion WOULD NOT BE OBJECTIONABLE, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath SHALL BE SPIRITUAL, and consequent on the presence of God...BUT, as they [carnal millenarians] assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who believe them are called by the spiritual Chialiasts, which we may reproduce by the name Millenarians...(De Civitate Dei)"
Some have equated Rev. Iannuzzi's interpreation of the Millennium with "modified" or "spiritual" millenarianism. But this is incorrect, and in one of his books Rev. Iannuzzi clarifies that "spiritual" or "modified/mitigated" millennarianism is easily recognized by characteristics similar to those of its predecessors, with the ONE EXCLUSION of carnal pleasures. In other words, the heresy of "modiified" millenariansm simply says that BEFORE the Last Judgement, Christ would descend to earth IN THE FLESH and reign VISIBLY for a LITERAL 1000 years; however, he would not participate in immoderate carnal banquets. Nowhere in Rev. Iannuzzi's writings does he support this "modified" millenarianism.
Also, Siobhan, regarding the Fatima Consecration: I believe that this was accomplished in 1984 and that Sister Lucia is on the record confirming this fact. The changes in Russia since 1984 require a supernatural explanation. Did you know that there are now more legal restrictions on Abortion and Homosexuality in Russia than there are anywhere in the West? In fact,the "errors of Russia" have spread. They came to the West. Also, the manner in which Western media has been demonizing Russia and Putin (especially as related to situation in Syria - where Christians, Jews and Alawites are being murdered and displaced by Western-backed "rebels") is just further confirmation that the Dragon (who now has his throne in the West) is at war with the Woman (who has chosen Russia for reasons of "Heavenly Security").
It is my opinion that the Era of Peace promised at Fatima - which then Pope Benedict XVI, in 2010, publicly prayed would commence before 2017 - is synonymous with the events described in Revelation 20.
If this Era of Peace has not yet come, perhaps it is because the Consecration of Russia was only one part of the Fatima request. Our Lady of Fatima also requested prayer, penance and the First Saturday Devotion.
If this Era of Peace has not yet come, perhaps it is also because Fatima is also only one piece of the plan. At the approved apparition of Our Lady of All Nations, Our Lady also requested as a precondition for Peace, that the Holy Father would solemnly define the Fifth Marian Dogma (Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate). Our Lady's Titles are her Functions. She will not be allowed to act on a global level until she her Functions are given Universal recognition.
Emmett,
We will just have to agree to disagree.
The Church has not yet ruled on a proper interpretation of the Millennium. She has told us what it is not: it is not a LITERAL 1000 years, Christ will not rule VISIBLY IN THE FLESH, nor will there be CARNAL delights or relief from the effects of sin and death.
There will be a Millennium. This is Revealed Truth found in Sacred Scripture. You have shown me what the Catechism condemns (it is the same thing Rev. Iannuzzi condemns) but you have not shown me one statement from the Catechism stating what the Millennium IS.
I have read Rev. Iannuzzi's book on this subject (Triumph of God's Kingdom in the Millennium) and not once does he espouse the heresy of Millenarianism or its many modified forms. In fact, Rev. Iannuzzi take his time explaining the many forms that a false, heretical interpretation of the Millennium takes, and he indentifies the Church documents condemning these heresies and exaclty WHAT is being condemned.
Rev. Iannuzzi points out that:
"Whereas the spiritual millenarianists retain the heresy of Christ's reign in the flesh for 1000 years, the Father concur in the doctrine of Christ's reign neither in the flesh nor for literally 1000 years, but from above and for a period of time simultaneous with the earth's rejoicing...It is noteworthy that the "spiritual blessings" of which Tertullian speaks - as for example, when he says, "We say that this city has been provided by God for receiving the saints on their resurrection, and refreshing them with the abundance of all really spiritual blessings" (Adversus Marcion) - are never intended to convey the physical reign of Christ for literally 1000 years often associated with spiritual millenarianism. On the contrary, as can be theologically decuded from the biblical exegesis of the Fathers, these "spiritual blessings" refer to the blessings procured by God which cause the earth's rejoicing, i.e., "Let the heaven rejoice and earth be glad, let the sea and all within it thunder praise, let the land and all it bears rejoice, all the trees of the wood shout for joy, at the presence of the Lord for he comes, he comes to rule the earth" (Ps. 96:13); "...For it is the seedtime of peace: the vine shall yield its fruit, the land shall bear its crops, and the heavens shall give their dew" (Zec. 8:12); "The earth shall yield its fruit, for God, oru God has blessed us" (Ps. 66:7).
Rev. Iannuzzi states that in arriving at a proper interpretation of the Millennium, more weight must be given to the statements of the early Church Fathers than to modern theologians:
"Due to poor hermeneutical scholarship, several authors, following Eusebius' lead, began to attribute the anathematized doctrines of mitigated millenarianism to the orthodox doctrines of the Apostolic Fathers. Failing to incorporate the exegetical norms in the interpretation of the Father's ancient writings, the Apostolic Tradition on the millennium began to lose credibility, and the orthodoxy they vehemently professed to maintain was now in question.
Rev. Iannuzzi goes on to state that this Millennium or Era of Peace will come about through those powers of the Church that are already at work. He says that this Millennium will be the fulfillment of the Our Father ("thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven") and the prayer to the Holy Spirit in which we pray, "Send Forth They Spirit that we may be recreated and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth."
Now, Emmett, regarding your citation of Matthew 12:29, I believe that must be taken in the context of that chapter, wherein Jesus drives out the demons from the possessed man. Christ is saying in this passage, how can I drive Satan out from the bodies of men, unless I am stronger than he, and first unarm him. Christ was making a point to the Pharisees, who accused him of driving out devils by the power of Beelzebub. I don't think there is any correlation between this passage and Revelation 20.
Revelation 20 clearly describes the binding and sealing of Satan in the Abyss for the Millennium, during which time he cannot deceive the Nations. I can't think of one period or epoch or any extended period of time (which is what the term 1000 years signifies)between Christ's Ascension and the present moment, during which Satan HAS NOT been deceiving the Nations. This would indicate to me that the Millennium is a future event.
Rachmaninov,
Yes, you are correct.
But neither did the Pope JPII and Benedict XVI ever say that Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation is incorrect.
You will notice that MANY times since the First Advent of Christ (Incarnation), that Christ HAS in fact appeared and "come" to the Saints and Mystics. I think that this is the kind of "coming" that Rev. Iannuzzi has in mind. In fact, many Saints and Mystics talk about a coming Illumination of Conscience, which will be a Univesal supernatural event.
And there have been resurrections of many people at the hands of Saints since Christ's public miracles and Resurrection. To discount that these kinds of Signs and Wonders cannot happen in our time would be a mistake.
This is what Rev. Iannuzzi has in mind, not Christ coming in Glory in Judgement, but a coming in Mercy and Illumination.
Since a lot of this is coming down to semantics, the exact dictionary definition of millenarianism is anyone who holds to a doctrine of the millennium (a position which Fr. Iannuzzi himself freely admits to). Below are several dictionary definitions of the term:
Oxford Dictionary:
millenarianism
Pronunciation: /ˌmɪlɪˈnɛːrɪəˌnɪz(ə)m/
Definition of millenarianism
noun
[mass noun]
the doctrine of or belief in a future (and typically imminent) thousand-year age of blessedness, beginning with or culminating in the Second Coming of Christ. It is central to the teaching of groups such as Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
•
belief in a future utopian period.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/millenarianism
Note that the Jehovah's Witnesses similarly hold to an invisible coming of Christ (in the year 1874), and they are still classified as millenarian.
Here are a few more definitions:
mil·le·nar·i·an (ml-nâr-n)
adj.
1. Of or relating to a thousand, especially to a thousand years.
2. Of, relating to, or believing in the doctrine of the millennium.
n.
One who believes the millennium will occur.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/millenarianism
Definition of MILLENARIANISM
1
: belief in the millennium of Christian prophecy
2
: belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/millenarianism
It doesn't matter that Fr. Iannuzzi attempts to make further distinctions, such as whether Christ will reign in the flesh during this period or invisibly, or that he attempts to redefine the meaning of the word. The system of belief relating to the doctrine of the millennium is known as millenarianism. So the Catechism's teachings on millenarianism directly concerns the doctrine of the millennium (since this is the exact meaning of the word) and when the Catechism says "millenarianism" it means "the doctrine of the millennium".
"not Christ coming in Glory in Judgement, but a coming in Mercy and Illumination."
Ah, this is interesting. I just noticed these new passages in my Bible last night!
2 Tim 3:12-13 "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, unless you're born during the 1,000 year era of peace; while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived, that is, until the 1,000 year Era of Peace, when there won't really be much evil anymore."
Philippians 1:29 "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him. Unless you're born during the Era of Peace, where you won't really suffer very much and everyone will believe."
Matthew 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven. Unfortunate are those born during the Era of Peace, for they won't be blessed with many rewards because they won't really suffer much."
Mark 13:13 "All men will hate you because of me, unless you're born during the Era of Peace."
John 15:20 "No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also-- unless you're born during the Era of Peace."
John 15:18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that you must not be living in the 1,000 year Era of Peace yet."
LOL! Thanks Keith! It's funny because it's true!
Also when you study the Scriptural passages concerning the Second Coming, they almost invariably describe it as being a time of great distress, when Christ will bring judgment upon unrepentant humanity with the sword of His mouth. I'll give a small sampling below:
Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD! Why would you have the day of the LORD? It is darkness, and not light...
Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?
(Amos 5:18,20)
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
(Matt 24:29-30)
Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!
Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every human heart will melt.
They will be dismayed: pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at one another; their faces will be aflame. Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations
will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.
I will make people more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger.
(Isaiah 13:6-13)
“For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.
(Mal 4:1)
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
(2 Peter 3:10)
That day is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, to avenge himself on his foes. The sword shall devour and be sated and drink its fill of their blood. (Jer 46:10)
“Son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD:
“Wail, ‘Alas for the day!’
For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near; it will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations.
(Ezek 30:2-3)
Alas for the day!
For the day of the LORD is near, and as destruction from the Almighty it comes. Is not the food cut off before our eyes, joy and gladness from the house of our God?
(Joel 1:15-16)
The earth quakes before them; the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining. The LORD utters his voice before his army, for his camp is exceedingly great; he who executes his word is powerful. For the day of the LORD is great and very awesome; who can endure it?
(Joel 2:10-11)
Emmett,
Have you ever heard it mentioned that Padre Pio said that the earth would last 15,000 years? I know it's a little off topic, but when you mentioned La Salette and a little era of peace followed by the antichrist and the end of time, it brought to mind the Pio remark.
Keith,
That was great.Funny but the message is clear.
Anonymous, one prophecy of Padre Pio little known is that he said the home for the relief of suffering would still be standing until the last day. To be honest I cannot remember where i saw this but it was in something semi official like The Voice of Padre Pio magazine or possibly a book by one of the friars.
If italian builders are not up to much then we've got some serious thinking to do!
Keith,
Your are talking in circles.
The Millennium is Revealed Truth. It is contained in Sacred Scripture (including the very verses that you use to ridicule it) and alluded to in the writings of the early Church Fathers and hinted at by the Mother of God at Fatima. I think I'll take their word over yours. When such a convergence is noticed on a topic that has yet to be defined by the Church, then I think I am in rather good company.
Now, you make a gross error when you imply that during the Era of Peace there will be no suffering, death or sin. This is a straw man argument. No one who is discerning the true meaning of the Millennium believes this. Of course there will be sin, death and suffering during the Millennium. But they will be lessened. Why? Because during this period Satan's powers will be severely lessened and many Catholic prophecies indicate that there will be a new worldwide evangelization.
Ask yourself this question: what would happen if most of the world tomorrow stopped mortally sinning, joined the Catholic Church and partook of the Sacraments? It would be a very different world.
Again, I am going to quote for you from "The Teachings of the Catholic Church (1952)" which bears the Church's required seals and was published in 1952 by a theological commission of qualified experts, clearly states that it is NOT contrary to Catholic teaching to believe or profess "a hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things. Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not all certain that there will not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end...The point of division between the legitimate aspirations of such devout believers and...false millenarism is this: the Chiliasts - as believers in the millennium are called, from the Greek word for a thousand - seem to expect a coming of Christ and a presence of him in glory and majesty on this earth which would not be the consummation of all things but would still be a portion of the history of mankind. This is NOT consonant Catholic dogma...The coming of Christ in the second Advent...is the consummation of all things, the end of human history. If before that final end there is to be a PERIOD, MORE OR LESS PROLONGED, of triumphant SANCTITY, such a result will be brought about, NOT by the apparition of the Person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification WHICH ARE NOW AT WORK, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church. The Chiliasts of all times...and there are many to be found even to date, seem to despair, not only of the world, but even of that dispensation of grace which was inaugurated at Pentecost; they expect from the visible presence of Christ a complete conversion of the world, as if such a happy result could not be otherwise brought about."
Thank You, Emmett, for providing those definitions.
Could you please cite Church documents to defining the heresy of Millenarianism or its modified forms?
I am not interested in how Merriam Webster defines it. I am interested in how the Church defines this heresy.
Rev. Iannuzzi spends an entire chapter of his book examining these false doctrines of the Millennium using the Church documents that formally condemn them.
The false interpretation of the Millennium is called Millenarianism and it has many modified forms.
The reason that Millenarianism is called a "false" interpretation of the Millennium, is because there is a true interpretation of the Millennium. But you will not find this true interpretation anywhere in the Catechism or in any other Church document because, as then Cardinal Ratzinger stated to Father Martino Penasa in the 1990 interview that Rev. Iannuzzi cites: the Church has not yet given a definitive interpretation of the Millennium.
The reason I originally responded to this blog posting, was to correct your assertion that St. Augustine's interpretation of the Millennium as the "church age", is by no means the definitive interpretation. It is as valid at this point as Rev. Iannuzzi's, whose interpretation I believe jives better with the early Church Tradition and the approved private revelations of the Saints, not the least of which is the promise of the Era of Peace stated at Fatima by the Mother of God.
" I think I'll take their word over yours. "
I think I'll take the vast majority of Catholic theologians, Doctors of the Church, the catechism, and Jesus over Rev Iannuzzi.
I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be rude, but this whole semi-Golden Age is so unscriptural and contradicts everything about the Churches teaching.
For instance, we find a huge purpose in suffering-- we can 'merit' graces for unrepentant sinners and souls in purgatory. We join our sufferings with the sufferings of Christ. And this is Catholic dogma, btw, refer to the Council of Trent and Colossians 1:24. Yet you want me to believe that 1/3 of all Christian history and the majority of Christians who ever live will exist with very little suffering.
The Christian promise is not that we can live in a Golden Age with little suffering. The Christian promise is that we will suffer much, but that Christ has overcome the world, and that if we persevere until the end we will be saved.
"Ask yourself this question: what would happen if most of the world tomorrow stopped mortally sinning,"
Ask yourself this question: what would happen if the Flying Spaghetti Monster invaded the Earth?
The idea that the world will stop mortally sinning before Christ's return is just as ridiculous.
If you've thought through the Churches teaching you'd see why this is borderline heretical. Unless this Era of Peace somehow erases Original Sin and Concupiscence, then it'll be absolutely impossible for people to stop mortally sinning. So long as people have Original Sin, Concupiscence, and free will, the majority of people will continue to mortally sin.
Christ Himself said that the majority of people go to Destruction, and very few go to Eternal Life.
So even if you have everyone taking the Eucharist or other sacraments, the majority of people will be receiving Christ unworthily. The only way to get around this is to get rid of Original Sin, Concupiscence, and free will. The first two are guaranteed to only be done away with after Christs Second Coming.
"is not impossible, it is not all certain that there will not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end"
This contradicts the Catechism, which states: "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 Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world."
So Catechism+a Doctor of the Church+Christ vs Rev Aunnizzi+your book from 1952 that I couldn't find online......... Cat+Doc+Christ win.
" The Church has not interpreted it definitively, a point Cardinal Ratzinger made in the interview I cited. The Church has told us what it IS NOT, not what IT IS."
As pointed out earlier, the quote of Ratzinger that you're referring to is taken out of context.
But even if I concede your point-- so what?
The Church also hasn't definitively decided upon Evolution or whether or not God used aliens to first plant life on Earth (Panspermia).
I see Catholics often try to hold to borderline heretical views by proclaiming "well,the Church hasn't officially ruled on it." So what? The Church doesn't officially rule of very much, and typically only does so when they're challenged on a point. Otherwise they keep it open.
That's the case with the Millennium. But all evidence through the history of the Church, as well as Catholic theology (I find it hard to incorporate your ideas with the theology of suffering) seems to point to St Augustine's interpretation being correct; not Rev Iannuzzi's.
Emmett,
Can you share in a couple of paragraphs, basically, simply put, how you differ with Father Iannuzzi? I like him and I like you so I wish you two wouldn't differ.
The Vatican recently gave their "yes" to Father Iannuzzi's findings on the messages from Our Lord to Luisa Picaretta. Her messages make sense. God is helping humanity, giving us a greater help (living in the Divine Will), we need it. Times are sure showing this fact and it fits who God is, so generous.
In his book on the Millennium and the End Times, Father Iannuzzi didn't use private revelation to show God's plan for the end times and coincidence, prophecy backs it up.
God bless you,
Mary
I promised to look at this again and I keep drawing the same conclusion.
Of course I could be wrong. Please forgive the length of the post and the fact that I need to break my commentary into two parts. But here goes: [My ideas in Brackets]
[I think the opening statement is a preamble of sorts. An advanced peak at where things are going....]
Nations will convert, the faith will return everywhere.
A large country in northern Europe, today Protestant, will be converted:
by the support of this country, all the other countries of the world will be converted.
[I think "THIS COUNTRY" should be understood as France. Which aids the UK to conversion first.]
[Now we review the various events leading to the above condition...]
Before all that arrives, great disorders will arrive in the Church, and everywhere.
[Do we need to review these? ...
In the church we have the Napoleon attack on the Papacy. The interruption of Vatican I.
We have the captivity of the Pope during the great wars. This is a captivity of action
rather than a physical captivity. We have the forced Lateran Treaty. We have the Moscow agreement. We have the confusion of the Second Vatican Council. etc]
[The disorders everywhere... Let us summarize by the conversion of the last remnants of the great European Monarchies into various attempts at self-rule. The number of errors introduced via democratic style, parliamentary procedure seems endless. None of which seem to apply the Mosaic Law. All of these have their roots in the heresies of past centuries, in the great schism and the protestant reformation. All of this work was the ground-work for modernism and the imprint of masonry is upon them.]
Then after that, our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted.
His successor will be a pontiff that no one expects.
[I think John XXIII, JPII and Francis all fit this description. Herein lies the ambiguity of where exactly we are. Who is the persecuted Pope? Who is the unexpected?]
Then after that a great peace will come, but it will not last long.
[This is what is spoken of above. I think, "Nations will convert ...." is synonymous with this GREAT PEACE]
A monster will come to disturb it.
[This monster disturbs the Peace, however, that is not to say that it is newly introduced.
This monster could be Communism, or free masonry or Abortion or some combination thereof. It could also be a "United Nations Super State" or a "European Super State" operating as a counter-church and counter-state.]
Everything I say here will arrive in the next century...
[So we can see how everything could arrive or be established in the 20th century yet
not be fulfilled in its operation until well into the 21st century.]
More commentary on this Multi-Headed Beast or Monster follows...
We can see that free-masonry is capable of the "disorders" spoken of within the Church
as well as within society. I think that is a clue as to where to start to look for the monster.
Communism (More accurately, World socialism) is probably the MONSTER. I see them as interchangeable in a way. It seems to me, that World socialism it the Secular beast and Free-Masonry is the Ecclesiastical whore. World Socialism is delivered in the form of a governmental structure, most likely the UN (within the 100 years). The European Union is another candidate, but it would need to be extended via UN treaty and trade agreements
to become more universal. The culture of death (abortion, Euthanasia, etc) is the sacrificial system of the Masonic Whore. I see the cultural errors as the seven blasphemies or anti-sacraments. One could also consider them as the 7 deadly sins enshrined as "The Rights [Rites] of Man." In any event... it is the secular world order that imposes the Masonic anti-sacraments.
1. Baptism opposed by Envy: Abortion (depriving others of theirs)
2. Reconciliation opposed by Wrath: War
3. Eucharist opposed by Greed: Theft of modern Economy as opposed to thanksgiving.
4. Confirmation opposed by Sloth: The sins against the Holy Spirit of final impenitence
5. Ordination opposed by Pride: the Occult - Humanism - Freedom of Religion
6. Matrimony opposed by Lust: Contraception
7. Extreme Unction opposed by Gluttony: Euthanasia (only if Gluttony is understood as a sin of selfishness)
Those who advance these so-called rights of man could be among those sealed with the Mark of the Beast. The Mark is said to be in the hand "deeds" and/or in the forehead "thought". What you think and what you do (By their fruits you shall know them) is indicative of the Mark. And so the Mystery of Iniquity begins to reveal itself. Those who build-up the beast-system are marked in the hand. Those who approve or refuse to combat it are sealed in the forehead.
Keith,
Yes, you are correct, the Kingdom will not be fulfilled by the Era of Peace/Millennium. I am not saying that it is. Nor is Father Iannuzzi. You are engaging in a straw man.
There is a reason that the Day of the Lord is called a" day". Like a solar day, it has a beginning, middle and end, and Revelation clearly states the events that must take place before the Second Coming commences.
Now, as for your ridiculing the idea that it is possible for a period of universal sanctity within history by referencing Dawkins Flying Spaghetti Monster: it is actually you are bordering on the heretical by stating that it is impossible for humanity to stop mortally sinning. In fact, that is exactly what is required if we would like to go to Heaven.
There is nothing heretical about Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation.
And, yes, the Church has not ruled on the proper interpretation of the Millennium. Please stop pretending that She has or that the Millennnium is the same as the Second Coming in Glory.
Whether it's called a "milennium" or something else, I believe in whatever these Popes were talking about:
"It will at length be possible that our many wounds be healed and all justice spring forth again with the hope of restored authority; that the splendors of peace be renewed, and the swords and arms drop from the hand and when all men shall acknowledge the empire of Christ and willingly obey His word, and every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus is in the Glory of the Father." —POPE LEO XIII
"Oh! when in every city and village the law of the Lord is faithfully observed, when respect is shown for sacred things, when the Sacraments are frequented, and the ordinances of Christian life fulfilled, there will certainly be no more need for us to labor further to see all things restored in Christ… And then? Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion… “He shall break the heads of his enemies,” that all may know “that God is the king of all the earth,” “that the Gentiles may know themselves to be men.” All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith." —POPE PIUS X
Thanks for sharing that Fed - that is very insightful. I've always thought that the seven heads of the beast represent the seven deadly sins on a symbolic level, and that it parodies the seven sacraments.
Freemasonry was only able to emerge after Christianity was divided against itself - first in the Great Schism of 1054 and the rise of Knights Templar in the wake of the First Crusade (1096-1099) - from whom the Masons are partially derived. After this, the occult secret societies were still forced to operate underground. But they were free to emerge after Christianity was divided against itself once again in the Protestant Reformation and the separation of Church and State, and began the secularisation of society which has resulted in the Great Apostasy. So on one layer of interpretation, Satan really was bound for a literal period of a thousand years before Christianity was divided against itself, and after this his powers to deceive the nations were increased.
But the main layer of interpretation of the Millennium appears to relate to the entire age of the Church itself - which can be said to have ended at the turn of the 20th century (the start of the 100 years of Pope Leo XIII/the "little while"), when the spread of atheism facilitated by the discovery of the theory of evolution resulted in the Great Apostasy. This was the exact point in history when the spread of the Gospel began to slow to a halt in the Western world, and Church attendance began to dramatically decline.
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."
(Rev 20:1-3)
It was at this point in history that the camp of the saints - the City of God and the Heavenly Jerusalem which represents the Church, became surrounded by the forces of Satan. And we still await the baptism of fire in the Holy Spirit to come down from heaven to rescue us.
And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
(Rev 20:7-10)
Hi Mary,
I like Fr. Iannuzzi too. I believe him to be a sincere and genuine priest, and as such, a better person than I could ever hope to be. I also believe that he is motivated by purely good intentions - as are Miltonic and Dave here. It's just that I find that his interpretations of the millennium conflict with current Church teachings on the subject outlined in the Catechism.
My position, which simply follows the amillennial position that 99.999% of Catholic theologians have taught since the time of St. Augustine, is that the "millennium" of Rev 20 began with the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ, when the powers of Satan were bound so that he could not hinder the spread of the Gospel. Since then, Christ has reigned invisibly over His Church, which is His Kingdom on earth, and has been present with us always in the Holy Eucharist, and will be until the end of time - which will be brought about by His (one and only) Second Coming.
Fr. Iannuzzi goes against the amillennialist position that has been taken by almost every Catholic theologian since St. Augustine, and states that the millennium of Rev 20 will not become a reality until some point in the future, after the defeat of the Antichrist through an invisible intermediate Second Coming of Christ. After this, Fr. Iannuzzi argues that the powers of Satan will be bound for "a thousand years", and the Church will emerge triumphant in human history, when Christ will begin to reign invisibly on earth with the saints in the Eucharist (which implies that He hasn't been since His Ascension into heaven). After this thousand years are over, Satan will once again emerge (possibly in another Antichrist), before he is defeated by a Third Coming of Christ in the Flesh before the end of the world and the Last Judgment.
So these differences are rather fundamental. The only way that I see them being reconciled, is that if Fr. Iannuzzi's "thousand year" period of the era of peace was shortened somewhat considerably (perhaps a few decades - a length of time more compatible with that given by Our Lady of La Salette for the duration of the "great peace"). Also his intermediate Second Coming of Christ would have to be equated instead with the "Great Sign" in Catholic prophecy (which will perhaps be the appearance of a Cross in sky, brought about by something like a supernova). And he would have to accept that Satan was defeated definitely by Christ's death on the Cross, and that Our Lord has always been reigning over His kingdom invisibly in the Eucharist (which I think he would concede).
Emmett,
I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, we might be able to nail it down more precisely to the era of the first world war. This war was masonry's final ax to the tree of monarchy. It also lines up nicely with the Fatima apparitions. It's as if Mary was announcing that the church was about to enter into the place of refuge in the desert referenced in Rev 12. Along with the final death of monarchy the seeds of globalism took root. It seems LaSalette's reference to the demons being released from Hell in the 1860's really dove-tails nicely with the heretical ideas that were developed within Academia in the later half of the 19th century. These were out-growths of the so-called enlightenment and were prevalent among scientific and political thinkers in Europe. (Especially Germany) So we see, ideas have consequences. Modernism, the synthesis of all errors, takes root in our evil books. The battle over some of these doctrines is delayed by the war and by the time the opposition is mustered the battle is practically lost. SO, does the century begin with the vision of Leo XII or with Fatima? I'd say a good case could be made for either. What is intersting is, there seems to be 3 separate 100 year periods we are dealing with. 100 years from LaSallete, 100 years from Leo XIII's vision and 100 years from Fatima. (French Monarchy Warning) So how do we reconcile all of this? I was considering the possibility of the final confrontation in terms of a 3-fold attack. One against the spirit of truth or Academic. One against the body of Christ or Eclesiastical. One against the Sovereign will of the Father or Political.
Emmett,
Besides citing LaSalette as the reason you believe Hitler was the false prophet, is there anything else to reinforce this take? It's an interesting one but also unique because i've never heard of this before.
Is this a minority or majority position? Thanks.
"Yes, you are correct, the Kingdom will not be fulfilled by the Era of Peace/Millennium. I am not saying that it is. Nor is Father Iannuzzi. You are engaging in a straw man."
I've studied a lot of philosophy and debate, and am certain that I'm not engaging in a straw man.
I'll quickly summarize Rev Iannuzzi's belief: from Christ's death until now we live in a struggling world. Sometime soon (the fulfillment of Fatima?) Satan will be bound and we will enter into a 1,000 year Era of Peace (1,000 being representative of a "long period") during which there will be a "Eucharistic reign," where nearly everyone will be Catholic and there will be very little sin and struggling in the world. At the end of the 1,000 years Satan is released again and the End Times occurs with the culmination of everything when Christ returns as the Just judge.
Was that a straw man? I think not.
And the 1,000 year reign within there is still nearly heretical.
It contradicts the Council of Trent, Col 1:24, as well as every quote I gave of Jesus earlier. There is a purpose to suffering that God purposely created within humanity. Aside from the fact that suffering sanctifies us, it also allows us to offer up our suffering to give graces to others. You're basically telling me that 1/3 of all Christian history will have no suffering-- even though suffering has a very important role within salvation history. The modified Millennium empties the meaning of "pick up your cross and follow me."
Rev Iannuzzi's belief also means damnation to the vast majority of Jews, too.
I've passed this by numerous modified Millennialists before, and no one has been able to refute my argument. I'll type it in a series of inductive and deductive arguments.
A) Rev Iannuzzi's believes in a future Millennium during which Satan will finally be "bound."
B) This binding of Satan ends up converting the whole world to Christianity.
Therefore, C: Everyone will be converted to Christianity, the vast majority of the world will believe, and Satan will not be blinding people from the truth.
(Now, I'll take the conclusion and use it as my first premises...)
A) Satan will not be blinding people from the truth. People will be able to accept or reject the Gospel out of their own free will without Satan blinding them.
B) The Church officially teaches distinctions between vincible and invincible ignorance. Only people who are invincibly ignorant can reject the Gospel and still be saved. If Satan is bound and unable to blind people from the truth, people can no longer be said to be invincibly ignorant.
Therefore, C) Anyone who rejects the Gospel during the 1,000 year Era of Peace does it completely out of their own free will and is not invincibly ignorant. Thus, they will be damned.
(Again, I'll take the conclusion and use it as my first premises...)
A) Anyone who rejects the Gospel during the Era of Peace will be damned, since they cannot be invincibly ignorant.
B) The Church officially teaches that the Jews will convert to Christianity towards the very end of time, once the "full number of the Gentiles has come in" (Rom 11).
Therefore, C) The vast majority of Jews who live during the Era of Peace will not have converted to Christianity until the VERY end of the Millennium, after the "full number of the Gentiles has come in." Therefore, nearly all Jews who live during the 1,000 year Era of Peace will go to Hell.
Emmett: "My position, which simply follows the amillennial position that 99.999% of Catholic theologians have taught since the time of St. Augustine, is that the "millennium" of Rev 20 began with the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ, when the powers of Satan were bound so that he could not hinder the spread of the Gospel. Since then, Christ has reigned invisibly over His Church, which is His Kingdom on earth, and has been present with us always in the Holy Eucharist, and will be until the end of time - which will be brought about by His (one and only) Second Coming."...
Emmett, hi,
I agree with you, every priest does too and all Catholics, Christ is here and now and since 33 A.D., Eucharistically present and will be until the end of time.
Our Lord isn't coming in His person until the Final Judgment. There are three comings. So much of current prophecy speaks of divine events to prepare the world for Jesus' "middle coming" as St. Bernard calls it, a spiritual reign of Christ in hearts. How? Everyone will believe the same, there will be no more division, Christian or non-Christian. That's why this middle coming, the Era of Peace is so special, all people, the Remnant will believe in the Real Presence. The 7th Day is the Eucharistic reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in all hearts. The change of heart, conversion for disbelievers is going to take place in the moments of the Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17) plus it will be God's warning of the evil one's plans during the Great Tribulation, don't take the mark, etc. We're now in this last period of the 6th Day, headed into the Great Tribulation.
If you look at a brief summary of Father Iannuzzi's commentary on events ahead, they confirm private revelation, the messages from Heaven. The best I can express, I put in CAPS, my own words showing yes, prophecy says this and names it. Follow along...current prophecy and past private revelation makes explicit what Father Iannuzzi lays out.
Commentary, a summary of ~
The Triumph Of God's Kingdom In The Millennium And End Times
(A Proper Belief From The Truth in Scripture And Church Teachings)
by Father Joseph Iannuzzi, OSJ
Sequence of events:
First tribulation: (WE ARE NEAR TO OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION) and first instance of the General Judgment (THIS IS THE PROPHESIED GREAT WARNING) of all the living - Christ descends from Heaven in His glorified Spirit, sword of judgment issues from His mouth and it occurs suddenly, in an hour/Day. The first fruits of the remnant possess the temporal kingdom. (AFTER TRIBULATION AND THE GREAT CHASTISEMENT, THE REMNANT WILL LIVE IN THE ERA OF PEACE FOR A 1000 YEARS *may not be literal*, THE MILLENNIUM ON THE NEW EARTH WHICH GOD HAS COMPLETELY MADE OVER. SATAN IS BOUND IN HELL FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME. THIS MIDDLE COMING IS SPIRITUAL, IT IS THE MILLENNIAL EUCHARISTIC REIGN OF CHRIST DURING THE SEVENTH DAY. WE'LL SEE DURING THE GREAT TRIBULATION AND IN THE ERA OF PEACE (7TH DAY), THERE WILL ESPECIALLY BE, MANY SUPERNATURAL SIGNS AND CHARISMS GIVEN.)
Great Tribulation (SATAN IS RELEASED FOR ONE FINAL BATTLE WITH MAN... AND THE BATTLE OF ARMAGEDDON OCCURS) and second instance of the General Judgment (ALSO KNOWN AS THE FINAL JUDGMENT) of the dead. Christ comes in the flesh in glory and is seen with His Father pronouncing sentences of righteousness and condemnation from Their throne, accompanied by fire - the final remnant possesses the New Jerusalem forever and ever.
Mary
Saying the same here..what was just posted above:
Mary
+ + +
"To summarize very briefly, there will be two tribulations, two triumphs, two remnants and two kingdoms. One set of these events occurs at the beginning of the Millennium, and the other at its end.
Fr. Iannuzzi makes no predictions as to actual dates and times.
However, in salvation history, four thousand years preceded Christ, and two thousand years have followed upon his birth. The next thousand years would be the seventh thousand, or the seventh day, the Sabbath day rest. Hence this period may very well be the millennial period.
After the end of the seventh day, comes the eighth or eternal day of God's everlasting kingdom. However, we do not know for sure if the thousand years is to be taken literally, nor for sure when it will begin.
The Millennium is the period of peace which marks the peak of this Day. The defeat of Antichrist will herald the beginning of the Millennium, or thousand year spiritual reign of Christ. The binding of Satan for a thousand years is also at the beginning of the Millennium.
The reign of Jesus during the Millennium will be a Eucharistic reign.
Jesus will not come in the flesh to begin the Millennium, but will come in spirit and power. To say that Jesus will come in the flesh for the thousand years is the heresy of Millenarianism. To say that He will come in the flesh for a thousand years and establish a 'sensual' kingdom of carnal banquets is the heresy of Chiliasm.
The end of the Millennium is marked by the final defeat of Satan (Gog, Magog period). The Rapture or gathering up with Christ refers to the final judgement, and will be at the end of the millennial period, not at its beginning.
The end of the seventh day is the end of time, and the beginning of eternity, or the eighth day of eternal rest, the eternal kingdom of God.
Thus there are then two separate tribulations, one at the beginning of the day (Antichrist), and one at the end of the day (Satan), the 'great' tribulation. There are two remnants, the Christian survivors of each of the two tribulations. There are two triumphs - the first triumph heralds the Temporal Kingdom and the second triumph heralds the Eternal Kingdom."
anonymous,
In my book, in the last chapter, you will see how I compare the Scriptural quotes Fr Iannuzzi uses to justify two aspects of Judgmenent with Pope Benedict's use of them. The simple fact is Fr Iannuzzi is giving a new meaning to them which is not present in the Magisterium. What is to stop us all giving our own interpretation?
Romans ch 8, Isaiah 11, I Thess and St Bernard' so called three comings have all been given new meanings-and those are just a few.
Anon - Regarding Hitler being the False Prophet, yes I believe there is other evidence besides the date given by Our Lady of La Salette. But this theory is to the best of my knowledge unique to my book. It is widely known that Sr. Lucia explicitly stated that the Secrets of Fatima concerned chapters 8-13 of the Book of Revelation. But the secrets also largely concern the events of the two world wars - which would suggest that Rev 8-13 is in some way linked to this moment in history. The secrets were given to the shepherd children towards the end of the First World War in 1917, coinciding not only with the rise of Soviet Russia, but also with the issue of the Balfour Declaration - which would lead to the creation of the modern state of Israel in the wake of the Second World War. Using the number of "days" given in the Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse concerning the duration of the abomination of desolation, the date of the restoration of the State of Israel in 1948 appears to be a primary focus. See the below post:
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/abomination-of-desolation.html
Also if we study the description of the False Prophet in Rev 13, we find that it is directly linked to the narrative concerning the Little Horn in the Book of Daniel. The preterist interpretation of the Little Horn is that this figure referred to Antiochus Epiphanes, who subjected the Jews to a bout of persecution before they won independence from the Seleucid Empire under Judas Maccabeus. But the passage concerning the Little Horn is also described by the prophet Daniel as having an eschatological context. By modelling the False Prophet on the Little Horn and Antiochus Epiphanes, the Book of Revelation thus suggests that the False Prophet would be a persecutor of Jews, after which the Jews would have their land restored to them. See the earlier post on the False Prophet below for fuller details, and other links that it contains to the other posts on this subject:
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/false-prophet.html
Keith,
I am not understanding your point. You seem to be saying that invincible ignorance is a good thing because more souls may be saved. This is precisely what the modernist theologians told us. So the Era of Peace would be a bad thing because people would possibly go to Hell if they explicitly rejected Him?
Then why did Jesus tell His disciples to bring the Gospel to all corners of the Earth (all nations)?
Keith,
BTW, I don't think your argument is foolproof, because irrespective of whether Satan is bound, we human beings are quite capable of blinding ourselves or being blinded by false beliefs by other human beings.
Certainly, Satan wouldn't be able to blind the vast majority of the people on the Earth as he is doing now, but there could still be people here and there who could blind themselves with their strongly held false beliefs, and it is "above our pay grade" to determine whether such people are invincibly ignorant or not.
Basically, what it boils down to is this:
The Millennium is a reality, being found explicitly in St. John's Apocalypse chapter 20. The Millennium is stated explicitly in Sacred Scripture and is alluded to in the writings of the early Church Fathers, Writers, and Doctors - a case that Rev. Iannuzzi tries to argue in his book.
The Church HAS told us what a false interpretation Millennium consists of.
The Church HAS NOT yet ruled definitively on the correct interpretation of the Millennium.
If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will not find a definitive interpretation of the Millennium. You will find reference to a false interpretation of the Millennium, but no reference to the correct interpretation of the Millennium.
Many times throughout Church history a question would arise as to the proper interpretation of some part of the Deposit of Faith that had not yet been clearly defined.
St. Vincent, in his Commonitory of 434, addresses the most prudent way to respond to situations in which no statement has yet been definitivly pronounced by the Church:
"If some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the Holy Fathers, of those, at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and the faith, were accepted as approved Masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple...Nothing ought to be believed by posterity save what the sacred antiquity of the Holy Fathers consentient in Christ has held"
Miltonic rhetoric,
So why did the CDF issue the notification against Vassula Ryden in which it clearly stated the idea of an era of peace within history is a doctrinal error. It is noteworthy also because it doesnt distinguish between different millennial theories. The text actually says "in millenarian style" Pope John Paul told Brazilian Bishops on January 29 1996 on their ad limina visit that "Since the beginning of my Pontificate, I have invited the universal Church to turn her gaze to the advent of the third millennium.… I also had the opportunity to point out that this is not “to indulge in a new millenarianism” (Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 23), with the temptation to predict substantial changes in it in the life of society as a whole and of every individual. Human life will continue, people will continue to learn about successes and failures, moments of glory and stages of decay, and Christ our Lord always will, until the end of time, be the only source of salvation"
Rachmaninov,
The key phrase is, "in Millenarian style..."
The notion of the era of peace as found in the heresy of Millenarianism is false.
The notion of the era of peace in connection with a correct interpretation of the Millennium, has not been defined, since the the correct interpretation of the Millennium has not been defined.
Also, the term "period of peace" was used by the Mother of God at the Church-approved apparition at Fatima, so it must be taken seriously.
It is perfectly possible right now for Humanity to live in peace with each other and nature. It requires a choice that each individual is faced with at every moment: to sin or not to sin. Sin and death and suffering will always be present, but the degree to which they are present depend in how Humanity responds to Grace.
The Kingdom of God is already here, right now in the Church. The era of peace will not be the fulfillment of the Kingdom (that can only happen at the Second Coming), but rather the living-out and sharing in that Kingdom by a large portion of humanity that currently has divorced itself from the Mystical Body of Christ.
Approved private revelation speaks of a coming New Evangelization.
The Mother of God has also promised a "period of peace" and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Our Lady does not bluff.
Emmett:
"My position, which simply follows the amillennial position that 99.999% of Catholic theologians have taught since the time of St. Augustine, is that the "millennium" of Rev 20 began with the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ, when the powers of Satan were bound so that he could not hinder the spread of the Gospel. Since then, Christ has reigned invisibly over His Church, which is His Kingdom on earth, and has been present with us always in the Holy Eucharist, and will be until the end of time - which will be brought about by His (one and only) Second Coming."
Emmett, I really appreciate your sharing and explaining,
Plus...
I now understand why no one responded to my question ~ ~ Is the GREAT WARNING the beginning of the Second Pentecost? I think because, you and others don't believe in the "middle coming" of Our Lord. The saints speak of it in approved private revelation and all the current yet to be approved revelation lay out the divine plan, the divine events involved in Jesus' "middle coming."
The Great Warning includes a "great sign" in the Heavens, it is going to be celestial and interior, our personal
NDE like life review. Jesus is coming to change our disbelieving hearts. Within a year of the Great Warning, God tries again with the Great Miracle. Depending on the world's response, it is prophesied, comes God's just Chastisement by fire. The Remnant will be protected during the Chastisement in places of refuge.
"To summarize very briefly, there will be two tribulations, two triumphs, two remnants and two kingdoms. One set of these events occurs at the beginning of the Millennium, and the other at its end. Fr. Iannuzzi makes no predictions as to actual dates and times."
As Father Iannuzzi puts it, we are close to the first Tribulation, before the 7th Day. Then, the first Remnant experiences the first Triumph, the Era of Peace forever how long (some call it the Millenniuum) while Satan is kept in Hell.
Emmett, daily, Jesus speaks of all these events in the unapproved. Heaven's time of "soon", the messages sound more urgent lately.
Mary
"The Church HAS told us what a false interpretation Millennium consists of.
The Church HAS NOT yet ruled definitively on the correct interpretation of the Millennium.
If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will not find a definitive interpretation of the Millennium. You will find reference to a false interpretation of the Millennium, but no reference to the correct interpretation of the Millennium."
You're quite right Miltonic - the Catechism only tells us that the false interpretation of the millennium is millenarianism.
But by doing so, it leaves amillennialism as the one and only alternative. If we are compelled to reject millenarianism, the only other option is amillennialism.
Emmett,
We are not compelled to accept "amillennialism" as the one and only alternative.
Amillennialism is but one interpretation of the Millennium. It is currently the popular interpretation among modern theologians. But the Church has no where stated that amillenialism is the CORRECT interpretation of the Millennium, at least to my knowledge.
There are only two different positions to take on the millennium - amillennialism or millennialism (whether pre or post). Amillennialism literally means "no millennium" - that there won't be a future millennium (since it is the present age of the Church). Millennialism argues that there will be a millennium - either before or after Christ's Second Coming (pre or post). Premillennialism and postmillennialism are both specifically Christian forms of millenarianism, which was formally referred to as just chiliasm, before the divergence into pre and post. Nowadays chiliasm is just known as the umbrella term millennialism. Millenarianism is an even broader umbrella term which refers to any doctrine which proposes a utopian "thousand year" reign in the future. For example Nazism, with its promulgation of a "Thousand Year Reich" is a secular form of millenarianism - which is what the Catechism especially condemns - "especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism". All forms of millenarianism (which propose that paradise can be created here on earth) are condemned by the Catechism. This is the real crux of the matter - not whether Christ will come in the flesh or not to inaugurate this utopia. Invisible comings of Christ as opposed to in the flesh have been proposed many times throughout history, and they are always classified under the terms millenarianism or its specific Christian form chilasm/millennialism. Any systematic theologian will be able to tell you this. Fr. Iannuzzi gives a new meaning to millenarianism which simply does not exist. In reality, Fr. Iannuzzi's theories are just a modified form of millenarianism, which would fall under the mitigated (lessened) forms condemned by the CDF in 1944.
Emmett,
There is only one correct interpretation of the Millennium.
We know that there will be a Millennium. Whether or not it has commenced continues to be debated since the Church has not told us what this Millennium is or when it has begun.
The Early Church Fathers wrote about the Millennium.
St. Augustine wrote about the Millennium and wrestled with different interpretations of it in De Civitate Dei. The allegorical interpretation of the Millennium as the "church age" (or what you refer to as "ammillenialism") was but one of St. Augustine's "four ways" of interpreting the Millennium. It is the popular interpretation but by no means the definitive interpretation. On this point, Rev. Iannuzzi says:
"Due to certain eusebian proteges, the second allegorical way of interpreting the millennium became the exclusive way, perhaps to safeguard the faithful from all breaches of faith resulting from erroneous interpretations of the millennium, but with the backlash of having to forfeit those orthodox teachings that have come to us from the Apostles and their disciples. Having gone awry in the exclusive adoption of the allegorical interpretation triggered by Eusebius' poor speculative theological prowess, such theologians have sent the possibility of a "period of rest", and "era of peace" preceding the end of the world, out into the far reaches of space...They had, in effect, not only confused this third century chronicler's recounts of Church history with the Fathers' orthodox theology, but availed themselves of Augustine's allegorical way in the process.
Subsequently, the millennium became exclusively referred to as a mere symbol, an allegorical expression indicating that period in time that spans from the Incarnation of Christ to his final coming in glory. It is, moreover, highly probable that for fear of preaching what might be considered as the condemned heresy of a "false millennium" or "millenarianism", many scholars preferred to reticently avoid discussing any notion of a temporal kingdom rather than engaging in a heated debate on what was an undeniably cryptic heresy...Unless a professor or scholar kept abreast of patristic doctrine, he would be at a loss when attempting to engage in debate on the nature surrounding the true and false doctrines of the millennium.
Augustine's allegorical way provided a convenient and practical solution: it skirted the issue of millenaristic doctrines altogether, while at the same time enjoyed the backing of an eminent Doctor whose writings have been endorsed by the Church for centuries.. This allegorical way would become the common way - nota bene: not the Traditional way...However, a careful study of Augustine's text reveals that through his presentation of the various way of interpreting the thousand years he is not, by any means, setting forth an unequivocal dissertation on the millennium: that one way is to prevail over the others."
Double post, I meant to share this in the current thread.
The Church doesn't comment on ALL of eschatology. It is PROPHECY that makes explicit the end times and about the next period of time, the 7th Day. Sharing, from 2010.
Someone compiled prophecies about the Era of Peace. This is the "first triumph" as Father Iannuzzi calls it.
I couldn't post the entire list.
Mary
+ + +
Compilation of Prophecies on the New Era of Peace
April 6th, 2010
This Report prepared by Ronald Smith, Chardon, Ohio, 44024 - USA
SISTER NATALIA is a Hungarian nun born in 1901 and is alive at the time of this writing (1993). She was chosen by Jesus to suffer as a victim soul for the priesthood and to be a messenger to the world.
"Jesus showed me in a vision that AFTER THE CLEANSING, mankind will live and angelic and clean life.
There will be an END TO SINS against the sixth commandment, adultery, and an END TO LIES.
The Savior showed me that unceasing love, happiness, and divine joy will signify this FUTURE CLEAN WORLD...
SATAN AND SIN WERE COMPLETELY DEFEATED AND TOOK LEAVE...
LITTLEST OF SERVANTS:
"I knew that this meant (a vision) that the Catholic Church would CONVERT THE WHOLE WORLD and would reign in the coming era of peace."
LUZ DIAZ:
"The HOLY EUCHARIST is all.
The triumph of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary will come and there will be PEACE ON EARTH.
When it happens, you will gaze at my presence in the huge Eucharist, you will see what I have been revealing.
ANN MARIE WHITE:
"Evil begets evil (reference abortion).
Your country (USA) will be CLEANSED and PURGED until one day I shall reign in a NEW ERA OF PEACE AND LOVE."
JAMES:
"The great awakening (warning) is NEAR.
This great event will begin the march to the great era of peace.
To the time when PARADISE WILL BE RESTORED."
LEC:
"I wish as soon as I can to RESTORE EARTH TO ITS FORMER GLORY, the REINSTITUTION OF PARADISE where those who sought Me and My Son Jesus with their hearts shall dwell.
But this privilege has to be earned by each person yearning to see and live in the new era which the Spirit of I Am revealed to My servants the prophets."
LOUISE STARR TOMKIEL
"I saw a GLORIOUS VISION of the ERA OF PEACE.
I am in total awe of all that our Lord revealed to me: pure air, crystal clear water, beautiful trees and shrubs, even grass all in various luscious shades of green, etc...
Every man, woman, child and animal was LIVING TO PLEASE GOD and to do only His Will.
MY TINY REMNANT WILL THEN LIVE IN MY ERA OF PEACE.
ALL THINGS WILL BE MADE ANEW.
Although some of my remnant will NOT live to see this new era, they will rest in peace with me."
NED DOUGHERTY:
"When the time comes, a NEW JERUSALEM will come upon the land and the seas, and an ERA OF PEACE will settle upon the earth."
JENNIFER:
"There will NO LONGER be abortion and the sounds of My little ones will triumph.
There will be NO MORE adultery, NO MORE stealing.
My Commandments, dear children, will be RESTORED INTO THE HEARTS of man.
The era of peace will PREVAIL upon my people."
MERIAM:
"My Father's ERA OF PEACE will then be upon the earth and PEACE WILL REIGN in the hearts of those chosen to live during these times which will be called The Greater Testament, and will be a time of GREAT PEACE AND LOVE will exist in the hearts of ALL men."
LEC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
"Son, I am the person in scripture called 'The Woman Clothed With The Sun'.
I am part of the prophecies of the end times.
Contrary to what others believe, the Father has given me an assigned role for the liberation of planet earth and its ushering into a NEW ERA OF PEACE, the SECOND EDEN."...
Pope Francis' General Audience today was about the second coming.I will just paste the relevant bit to this discussion:
"Today I would like to reflect on three Evangelical texts that help us enter this mystery: that of the ten virgins, the talents and the final judgment. All three are part of the Jesus' discourse on the end of times, in the Gospel of St. Matthew.
First of all remember that, with the Ascension, the son of God brought to the Father our humanity that he took on and he wants to draw all men to himself, to call the whole world to be welcomed into the open arms of God, so that, at the end of history, all of reality will be handed over to the Father. There is, though, this "intermediate time" between the first coming of Christ and the last, which is precisely the time that we are living"
Need I say more?
"I am not understanding your point. You seem to be saying that invincible ignorance is a good thing because more souls may be saved."
My point is that people with invincible ignorance can still be saved; but that Jews during the supposed Era of Peace won't be capable of invincible ignorance.
Your only way to get around my argument was to say that perhaps, somehow, the Jews during the Era of Peace will somehow remain invincibly ignorant. This simply can't be true. The official teaching on invincible ignorance, which is a DEFINITIVE TEACHING, is such, "Ignorance is invincible if it a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence."
There's no way that a Jew living during the Era of Peace, where Satan is bound and unable to blind them, where the whole world has converted to Christianity, and the world is under a "Eucharastic reign" could somehow remain invincibly ignorant. They'd be AT LEAST vincibly ignorant, if not completely rebelling with full knowledge.
Either way, such Jews would end up in Hell.
The only other way to get around this is to say that the Jews DO convert at the beginning of the Era of Peace. Unfortunately this is heresy, because it's official dogmatic teaching that the Jews convert AT THE END after the "full number of the gentiles" have come in, around the time of the revealing of the "man of lawlessness."
Neither invincible ignorance nor the conversion of the Jews at the end of time can be debated, as both are official teachings.
If Rev Iannuzzi is right, it ends up being the most anti-semetic belief system in history. I find that unconscionable.
"I am not understanding your point. You seem to be saying that invincible ignorance is a good thing because more souls may be saved."
My point is that people with invincible ignorance can still be saved; but that Jews during the supposed Era of Peace won't be capable of invincible ignorance.
Your only way to get around my argument was to say that perhaps, somehow, the Jews during the Era of Peace will somehow remain invincibly ignorant. This simply can't be true. The official teaching on invincible ignorance, which is a DEFINITIVE TEACHING, is such, "Ignorance is invincible if it a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence."
There's no way that a Jew living during the Era of Peace, where Satan is bound and unable to blind them, where the whole world has converted to Christianity, and the world is under a "Eucharastic reign" could somehow remain invincibly ignorant. They'd be AT LEAST vincibly ignorant, if not completely rebelling with full knowledge.
Either way, such Jews would end up in Hell.
The only other way to get around this is to say that the Jews DO convert at the beginning of the Era of Peace. Unfortunately this is heresy, because it's official dogmatic teaching that the Jews convert AT THE END after the "full number of the gentiles" have come in, around the time of the revealing of the "man of lawlessness."
Neither invincible ignorance nor the conversion of the Jews at the end of time can be debated, as both are official teachings.
If Rev Iannuzzi is right, it ends up being the most anti-semetic belief system in history. I find that unconscionable.
Miltonic,
I'm wondering what you think about my line of reasoning here. If my premises are true, and my conclusions follow my premises, then my conclusions are true. So to refute my reasoning you'd need to show my premises are faulty (which they're not, ALL of them are official Catholic teaching), or you'd have to show that my conclusions do not follow the premises (which I made sure they all do).
So how do you feel about the conclusion, that under Rev Iannuzzi's theology nearly all Jews during the supposed Era of Peace will go to Hell?
Here is the argument, pay close attention:
A) Rev Iannuzzi's believes in a future Millennium during which Satan will finally be "bound."
B) This binding of Satan ends up converting the whole world to Christianity.
C) Therefore, everyone will be converted to Christianity, the vast majority of the world will believe, and Satan will not be blinding people from the truth.
(Now, I'll take the conclusion and use it as my first premise...)
A) Satan will not be blinding people from the truth. People will be able to accept or reject the Gospel out of their own free will without Satan blinding them.
B) The Church officially teaches distinctions between vincible and invincible ignorance. Only people who are invincibly ignorant can not believe the Gospel and still be saved. The Churches official teaching states "Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence."If Satan is bound and unable to blind people from the truth and the entire world has heard the Gospel and is not geographically separated from it, people can no longer be said to be invincibly ignorant.
C) Therefore, anyone who rejects the Gospel during the 1,000 year Era of Peace does it out of their own free will and is not invincibly ignorant. Thus, they will be damned.
(Again, I'll take the conclusion and use it as my first premises...)
A) Anyone who rejects the Gospel during the Era of Peace will be damned, since they cannot be invincibly ignorant.
B) The Church officially teaches that the Jews will convert to Christianity towards the very end of time, once the "full number of the Gentiles has come in" (Rom 11), around the time of the unveiling of the "man of lawlessness."
C) Therefore, the vast majority of Jews who live during the Era of Peace but prior to the conversion of the Jews will not have converted to Christianity until the VERY end of the Millennium, after the "full number of the Gentiles has come in." Therefore, nearly all Jews who live during the 1,000 year Era of Peace will go to Hell.
Keith,
You have crafted an argument that is your own argument, not Rev. Iannuzzi's.
Rev. Iannuzzi bases his argument on Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers, Writers, and Doctors.
My initial response was to correct Emmett's mistaken notion that St. Augustine's allegorical interpretation of the Millennium is in some way THE definitive interpretation of the Millennium.
The binding of Satan in chains in the Abyss is Revealed Truth. It will happen during the Millennium - the proper interpretation of which the Church has not yet defined.
I cited "The Teachings of the Catholic Church (1952)" earlier to demonstrate that the New Evangelization and the Era of Peace will not come about by Christ appearing in Glory, but will come about via those powers that are already at work in the Church right now on earth - the Sacraments and the Communion of Saints.
Now, last time I checked, Jew and Gentile alike were commanded by the Apostles to repent and believe in the Gospel. Your statement that the Jews will be damned during the Era of Peace may follow from your own faulty argument, but it does not follow from the teaching of the Church and it does not follow from Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation of the Millennium. Catholic eschatology says that the Two Witnesses (Enoch and Elijah) will return at the time of the Antichrist in order to give witness to the Jews and Gentiles who will be most vulnerable to the charms of the Antichrist.
Miltonic rhetoric said:
"The Millennium IS NOT synonymous with the glorious fulfillment of the Kingdom, which will happen (as you correctly point out) at the Second Coming.
The Millennium has been equated with the Era of Peace foretold at Fatima which, again, is not synonymous with the glorious fulfillment of the Kingdom at the Second Coming....
AND
"Now, Emmett, regarding the idea that Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation (which you incorrectly label above as modified millenarianism") requires three comings of Christ in the flesh, this is incorrect. Rev. Iannuzzi's interpretation does not require three comings of Christ in the Flesh. Rev Iannuzzi responds to this point of confusion on pp. 78-79 of his book "The Triumph of God's Kingdom", quoting St. Bernard who said:"
'We know that there are three comings of the Lord. The third lies between the other two. It is invisible, while the other two are visible. In the first coming, He was seen on earth, dwelling among men…In the final coming, 'all flesh will see the salvation of our God, and they will look upon Him whom they have pierced.' The intermediate coming is a hidden one; in it only the elect will see the Lord within their own selves, and they are saved. In his first coming, our Lord came in the flesh and in our weakness; in this middle coming, He is our rest and consolation. In case someone should think that this middle coming is sheer invention, listen to what our Lord Himself says: 'If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him.'
+ + +
Posting Miltonic's words in part, to keep it brief.
I agree with Miltonic and I shared many private revelations yesterday that speak of the Era of Peace. I also mentioned St. Bernard's term "intermediate coming", it is Christ's middle coming
(spiritually). Why doesn't anyone reply to all those messages posted? They are all in
agreement! Is it because Father Iannuzzi is correct? One of the messages said ~
JAMES:
"The great awakening (warning) is NEAR.This great event will begin the march to the great era of peace."
The worldwide "Warning" begins the Second Pentecost. Do you see, the Era of Peace is God's 7th Day.
Everyone stays with their own understanding. Darn.
love,
Mary
2 Things:
First, the Antichrist comes at the end of the world not before. That is official teaching. The Catechism says he will form the final persecution. Unfortunately this is a common fault found in the millennium thesis.
Second, St Bernard's middle coming as interpreted by John Paul II and Benedict XVI (on a good few occasions) does NOT refer to a future point but refers to his continual comings throughout Christian history through the Sacraments.Again it is simply giving new interpretations to things already defined.
Thanks Stephen! You've made some excellent points here.
Also, as the above review at newtorah.org goes on to elaborate, Fr. Iannuzzi totally misrepresents St. Augustine's actual position on the millennium:
"When he comes to St. Augustine (p.61-65), the author offers an elaborate argument to explain why we should consider him a leading prophet of the postmillennialist ‘era of peace’. Rev. Iannuzzi quotes three passages from book XX of Augustine’s City of God (chs. 7-8), saying that in each passage Augustine gives a different understanding of the biblical notion of the extended Sabbath rest, which he calls St. Augustine’s ‘three-fold Sabbath typology’. The author implies that the first two passages support his proposed postmillennial ‘era of peace’, while the third outlines Augustine’s amillennial interpretation. He then suggests that for nefarious reasons the mediaeval Church rejected all but the third. On closer examination, however, the author’s argument falls apart. The first of the quotations selected by the author describes: “a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years; and that it is for this purpose that the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath. And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God…”(p.62). On examination of the original text of Augustine’s City of God, it appears that precisely at this point Rev. Iannuzzi omits a vital phrase: “for I myself, too, once held this opinion”. It is clear from the text omitted by Rev. Iannuzzi that St. Augustine has rejected the foregoing opinion himself. So in no way, should this passage be invoked to show Augustine’s support for the opinion described in the quoted text. The second quotation bears no relation whatsoever to what the author claims, namely that “The Sabbath day of rest represents the soul’s quest for union with God and its final achievement, continuous rest in him”(p.63). In the quoted passage Augustine continues his exegesis of the text of Rev. 20, suggesting two ways of understanding the historical period to which the thousand years symbolically refer. There is nothing here, or anywhere else in this section of Augustine’s exegesis, which can be understood as an alternative Sabbath typology, least of all, one that supports the author’s postmillennialist ‘era of peace’.
These are just two examples of the kind of treatment to which the author has subjected his sources. One suspects that he has ‘accommodated’ the writings of many others, in order to make it seem that his postmillennial ‘era of peace’ has the backing of several authoritative figures in the Church.
It is difficult to feel at ease with a work of such doubtful integrity, and for this reason I would not recommend this book of Rev. Iannuzzi. The scholar or theologian who appears to be deliberately manipulating his material to support notions that are theologically disputable cannot expect to attract serious searchers for the truth, especially in a subject so fraught with confusion. But perhaps the most significant danger of the author’s proposal is that of being confronted, at the expected time, with a false and deceptive peace – a counterfeit ‘era of peace’ engineered by the enemies of Christ. We are reminded of St Paul’s warning: “Concerning times and seasons, brothers, you have no need for anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief at night. When people are saying, ‘Peace and security’, then sudden disaster comes upon them, like labour pains upon a pregnant women, and they will not escape” (1Thess 5,1-3)."
Also no apparition which has been approved by the Church contains mention of a prolonged period of peace. La Salette is the only other approved apparition which mentions the duration of the era of peace, and explicitly states that it will not last a long time. It will be a brief period of conversion and spiritual refreshment, allowing for Church unity and the conversion of "all Israel", in order to prepare the Church to meet the Groom. It will be swiftly followed by the eschatological harvest at the Second Coming.
In fact, the Church uses the inclusion of millenarian style content to discern the validity of any alleged apparitions. Any which include mention of a future thousand year epoch of peace are immediately dismissed.
Does anyone have some doubts about the "warning" and "miracle" as someone has brought up recently? Has there ever been a warning previous to a major chastisement in biblical or church history? As much as I hope it actually occurs because it is sorely needed, I have my doubts about Garabandal, although I am open to the possibility.
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/dear-holy-father-he-is-coming/#more-10951
MArk Mallett's blog post today goes into this subject.
He seems to lean towards Father Iannuzzi's view.
Alex
Garanbandal has proven itself false with the election of Pope Francis. He is the 5th pope, regardless of whether it was 3 or 4 interpretation of popes until the end. Cannot have a major prophetic mistake like that and expect to be true.
Emmett,
As far as the "seventh day Sabbath", certainly St. Augustine did not hold to that opinion any longer (though he once did), but for Fr. Iannuzzi's argument, the main point is that St. Augustine stated that the opinion was not objectionable. I don't think the fact that he omitted that St. Augustine no longer held that position means anything. It is not important to his argument.
Keith,
It is above our pay grade to know which ignorance is "vincible" and which is "invincible." Children raised to think that other races are inferior may well be invincibly ignorant on that point even though the vast majority of the world is against them on that point.
Also, I think your argument on the point that the Jews will only come in at the very end of time is not unassailable at all. In fact, it is exactly the reverse. If you read Acts 3:19-21, from Peter's discourse to the Jews, it talks about the "times of refreshing" as coming AFTER the conversion of the Jews:
"Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."
Fr. Iannuzzi and Mark Mallett view the "end times" as comprising the "Day of the Lord." and thus everything from now until the Second Coming of Christ in glory is part of the end times.
Anonymous,
One of the Popes (John Paul I) is not counted because he had a very short reign. If Garabandal is correct, we are now in the "end of times", or "end of this era."
Emmett,
You have mentioned on this blog another blog that begins with the word "torah." I've looked back through the writings but missed the URL. Could you please give me the name again?
Mary-Louise
newtorah.org
Dave,
Once again its twisting already defines scriptural passages. In the Catechism no 673 which is about the final coming at the end of the world Acts 3 19-21 is quoted:
" Since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent,566 even though "it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority."567. This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are "delayed".568
674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.569 St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."570 St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"571 The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",572 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".573"
Footnote 570 is Acts 3 19-21.
Would you now accept that this does not refer to a millenium and that the Jews only come in at the end?
Rachmaninov,
No, I wouldn't accept any such thing. The CCC passage states that the Second Coming is suspended until the conversion of the Jews. I fully accept that, but I have no idea why you think this passage of the Catechism disproves the existence of a millennium, especially since St. Peter explicitly referred to the "times of refreshing" in his passage. What do these "times of refreshing" refer to in the amillenialist view?
Again, I think part of the confusion is that in Fr. Iannuzzi's interpretation, everything from the tribulation to come, to the Era of Peace, to the final releasing of Satan, IS ALL PART of the events surrounding the "end of the world" or the "Day of the Lord" if you prefer. So even if the Jews come in before the Era of Peace, that would still be at "the end of the world."
Dave,
The times of refreshing refer to the new heaven and new earth after the Last Judgment-which is why in that passage from the CCC it says st Paul echoes St Peter "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"571 The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",572 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".573"
God will be all in all when the final coming happens and the resurrection from the dead.
Also how could the Catechism state"This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are "delayed" if there is a millennium to come.
The ccc no 674 is explaining that St Peter tells the jews to convert because it is through their conversion that the Kingdom will be fulfilled. That is why Acts 3 19-21 refers to the final coming.
Dave, ask yourself this question. What difference is there between Catholics who come up with their own interpretations to Magisterial defined teachings and protestants who do it?
Rachmaninov,
I think we are just talking past each other. I accept the CCC passage just as strongly as you do. Obviously, we both think each others interpretation of the passage is strange. If the Church specifically rules out Fr. Iannuzzi's interpretation, I will readily submit to that.
It doesn't really matter to me which way it happens, but from my understanding now, Fr. Iannuzzi's interpretation does the best job in my opinion in making sense of the data in Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.
BTW, I don't see how "times of refreshing" can refer to a time after the Last Judgment, especially since Peter says "that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, AND that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus"
It seems that the order should be reversed if the Second Coming takes place before the times of refreshing.
Dave, even if John Paul 1 is not counted, the original prophecy called for 3 popes. The 4 popes prophecy was later given was in relation to JP 1, who was not counted. Pope Francis is the 5th pope, which proves that Mary did not give this prophecy. Pope Benedicts resignation threw a wrench into this prophecy. Since the warning did not happen during Benedicts reign, Garanbandal is completely false. Trying to redact the prophecy to fit Pope Francis is actually an exercise in futility.
As well as La Salette telling us that the "great peace" will not last long, Jesus informs us that the duration of the New Springtime would not extend beyond the generation who witnesses it:
"And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."
(Luke 21:29-33)
Obviously these words did not refer to the generation of Christians living in the first century. Rather it is the generation who witnesses the buds of the New Springtime being put forth that will not pass away until all things are accomplished. A biblical generation lasts for 40 years.
Anonymous,
You said, "Since the warning did not happen during Benedicts reign, Garanbandal is completely false."
Where did Garabandal messages say that the Warning would happen during the reign of the third Pope? I am confused.
Dave, I was basing that on the assumption of commentators such as Ron Conte, that the warning would happen during Benedicts reign. Apparently, he and others were basing their interpretation based on Conchita's statement of only 3 popes left. Later on, it was changed to 4 popes because JP 1s reign was short, and therefore, not "counted". Obviously, the commentators were wrong, because Pope Francis is now #5. Goes to show you to be careful of prophecy, and to trust in the Church and her extremely cautious approach to prophecy. The church has approved Fatima and Lourdes for example, but nary a word for Garanbandal. And probably will not approve Me of djugorje either, regardless of the "positive vibes" the supporters claim of the Vatican. I still remember the clip of a seer flinching when someone poked his two finger into her face. If she was in true ecstasy, there would have been no effect. Peace of Christ upon you.
Anonymous,
Well, the thing about the four popes instead of three was from a German book published in the 1990's called "The Finger of God".
Apparently, the interview in the book contained the following:
Alone at home, fearing a possible error from Conchita's part, her mother asks her:
-- How do you know that there will only be three more Popes?
Conchita answered:
-- The Blessed Virgin told me. In reality She told me that there would be FOUR Popes but She was not counting one of them.
Aniceta then says:
-- Then, why not count one of them?
Conchita responds:
-- She did not say; She only told me that one would not be counted; however, he would govern the Church for a very short time.
=============
I do not have this book and thus I cannot confirm that the statements above are a true representation of what is in the book. However, as far as I remember, the main statement by Conchita was that there would be three more Popes and then "the end of the times"
So, if Emmett is correct that Pope Francis is the Angelic Pope of prophecy, the Garabandal prophecy may be correct. The fulfillment of prophecy does not always look like we expect it to beforehand. I guess time will tell for sure.
God bless!
Regarding your caution about Medjugorje, in the messages given by Our Lady to Father Gobbi of The Marian Movement of Priests, she refers to her appearances at Medjugorje. (message 357m, July 3, 1987) "Already during this Marian Year, certain great events will take place, concerning what I predicted at Fatima and have told, under secrecy, to the children to whom I am appearing at Medjugorje."
I think that this will be of assistance to you.
Likely you already have a copy of "To The Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons" but if not you can obtain a copy via their website.
Suzanne
I saw that in Fr Gobbi's book. Yet at the same time he was told the consecration of Russia wasn't done as per the BVM's request whilst one of the Medjugorje seers said it had been. Most modern visionaries are cut of the same cloth and most concerningly have a touch of "Vatican II" and "Novus Ordo" about them.
The clip of Vicka flinching and then lying afterward
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idlczado4Oc
The spin machine of Medjugorje TV is tiresome. Whilst I like Michael Brown's Spirit Daily and many of his writings I wish he would communicate the other side of Medjugorje.
Hi Suzanne,
I was aware of this. Fr. Gobbi's apparent endorsement of Medjugorje is only contained in earlier versions of the Blue Book. It has been removed from all recent editions, including the one I own. This is a bit surprising really, and makes me wonder why he would retract this endorsement. It was edited out before his death, so it was obvious with his full knowledge and permission. Did he later discern against the validity of that particular locution?
I think this highlights the problems with interior locutions, which were elaborated upon by Cardinal Ratzinger in his theological commentary in the Message of Fatima document. Sometimes they can be received imperfectly, and can be difficult to separate from the subjective elements of the seers own preconceptions.
As I've already said, I certainly wouldn't rule out Medjugorje. But I would have to agree with Jamey in that both sides have to be weighed up critically. If the commission comes back with a positive verdict concerning evidence of the supernatural at Medjugorje, I would gladly accept it.
I don't think that the seer flinching and then giving a rather poor excuse for doing so constitutes concrete proof that the whole thing is false. But is it certainly a good item for consideration in the "case for the prosecution".
My copy of the Blue Book, which I just received within the last month, still has the mention of Medjugorje at 357m. Were you referring to something else, Emmett?
I agree that Fr. Gobbi's mention does not cinch it that Medjugorje is authentic though!
Hi Dave,
That's odd... No, it's definitely the same message. In the version I have, after the words "Already during this Marian Year, certain great events will take place, concerning what I predicted at Fatima" there is just an ellipsis - (...). The mention of Medjugorje is deliberately left out. I wonder is this omission region specific? And if so why?
Emmett,
Very interesting...I would guess it might be that an editor decided to "censor" it? My version is the 18th English edition, published in December of 2009 in the USA.
My copy (mentioning Medjugorje) is the 18th Edition-Reprint Dec. 2000. I just looked at my son's copy which is the 18th Edition-Reprint Dec. 2009 and it also has the Medjugorje mention. Both books were printed in the United States.
I'll ask again, what of all those messages about the Era of Peace I posted a few days ago?
They are about the intermediate coming of Christ.
And people are stuck on dismissing Garabandal here. Doesn't matter, approved private revelation speaks
of the Great Warning (Faustina's messages).
Please reply about all those messages from Heaven. How can it be, only after Church approval can we say "yes" they are all saying the same thing. We can believe them now.
I wish I could find the private
revelation to change our dear OP's
mind.
love to you all,
Mary
p.s. Thanks for bringing it up, everyone read Mark Mallett's latest writing.
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/dear-holy-father-he-is-coming/
I never paid much attention to Medjugorje because the place seems so commercial and the brief messages always sound the same. But, you have to look at the fruit.
Read another amazing testimony of healing at Medjugorje. Thanks Michael Brown at spiritdaily for posting the link to the miraculous story on your blog a few days ago.
http://www.medjugorjetoday.tv/9277/crippled-woman-healed-
in-medjugorje/
Mary
Mary,
but none of those revelations you mentioned have any church approval at all.And that is pretty much at the heart of the problem.
Compare that with approved ones:
Divine Mercy-Jesus talks of the final coming-no intermediate mentioned.
Rwanda- one of the three approved visionary Alphonsine Mamureke (now a Nun) stated Our Lady told her she had come to prepare hearts for the return of Jesus.
San Nicholas Argentina- Our Lady said "the coming of the Lord is imminent" (local bishop approval)
Fatima Triumph of the Immaculate Heart- equated by Pius XII and Benedict XVI with the coming of the Kingdom (as stated in the catechism comes at the end of the world)
It is not difficult to see the contradiction between approved and unapproved. There are never any millenial theories associated with approved revelations as I think Emmett mentioned a few posts back.
Stephen
Nice synopsis Rachmaninov. Before this post I was a fence sitter mainly due to the volume of private revelation which seems to indicate a millennium of peace coming up.
"but none of those revelations you mentioned have any church approval at all. And that is pretty much at the heart of the problem."
Why do these non approved apparitions/visions seem to indicate a prolonged era (in many cases a millennium) of peace and ecstasy - is the father of lies behind this? If so why this particular deception?
Jamey,
I think the answer to that question lies in a misunderstanding about the end of the world. In my book (which hopefully Emmett is going to review soon) I discuss this area in ch 10. Basically before Vatican II there was no in depth theology in catechism manuals about the restoration of the universe after the last judgment. The answer you would see in those manuals was after the second coming we will live eternally in heaven etc. Since Vatican II, the popes providentially,and the CCC have gone into much greater detail about the reality of the new heaven and new earth (which was the second reading today). Pope John Paul when a Cardina,l spoke significantly about how Vatican II enlarged the understanding of the novissimis to include the making new of all things at the end of time.
So, for me, its a case of people who pedal the millennium theory not understanding the idea that yes, there will be an era of peace but because they thought the world would be literally destroyed at the end of the world, they presumed it had to therefore come within history. To give you an idea of the problem, I spoke to a priest, who hold an important position in one of the large Marian organizations in the US and he didnt accept the idea that the universe would be renewed after the Last Judgment. He asked for evidence, so I showed him the relevant passages in the CCC. That shows the seriousness of the problem-a lack of theological understanding, and that is where followers of many private revelations go wrong. Without the theology to guide it, we end up trying to put square pegs in round holes. The private revelation should always be interpreted in the light of Tradition and the Magisterium, and yet sadly all too often its the other way round!
And of course the point is for clarities sake, the era of peace after the Last Judgment will have no end
Which is why we have in the Creed "His Kingdom will have no end"...
I think the real root of this problem, and the reason that millenarianism has been condemned so harshly in the Catechism, is because that it promotes the idea that paradise can be established here on earth, either without God being present at all (postmillennialism), or with the presence of a physical messianic ruler who has the potential to be the Antichrist (premillennialism). The Catechism calls this "the deception of the Antichrist", because this "paradise" free from God is exactly what the Antichrist will want to establish here on earth. Once Satan has been finally cast from heaven, establishing an eternal kingdom here on earth is his one and only chance of replacing God:
"You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’
(Isa 14:13-14)
I'm going to go into this in more detail in a future post. But by calling millenarianism the "deception of the Antichrist", the Catechism is directly referencing one of the only passages in the New Testament which explicitly mentions the Antichrist, which at the same time warns us not to become attached to worldly things, and remember Christ's promise of Eternal Life:
"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.
(1 John 2:15-25)
I'll be finished reading your book soon Stephen, and I promise to put up a review shortly after. I'm already greatly impressed with your work so far, and know that I'll be giving it a hearty recommendation.
Thanks Stephen.
"So, for me, its a case of people who pedal the millennium theory not understanding the idea that yes, there will be an era of peace but because they thought the world would be literally destroyed at the end of the world, they presumed it had to therefore come within history."
Trying to make sense of private prophecy some indicate that there will be survivors after the coming chastisement and if true would indicate whilst the "world" would be destroyed not necessarily the "Earth" which I assume will undergo a transformation after the Last Judgement. I am not sure if there being survivors taken up to the Final Judgement without first undergoing physical death is a heresy of sorts though.
Also regarding the Millenium theory: it would be odd for the looming chastisement by fire to occur as warned at Akita and Fatima, then for there to be survivors who usher in a "millennium" of peace and then the world (not the Earth) to be destroyed once again with fire as mentioned in scripture at the end of time. So with the Millennium theory there would not only be two second comings of sorts but also two huge chastisements by fire.
"Without the theology to guide it, we end up trying to put square pegs in round holes. The private revelation should always be interpreted in the light of Tradition and the Magisterium, and yet sadly all too often its the other way round!"
CONCURRED.
By the way Stephen I am sure Cardinal Dias, Ralph Martin et al would find Emmett's work to be of great value and interest :-)
Ah!
Thanks Jamey. That is without question!!
Jamey, I've often wondered about the words of Our Lady of Akita concerning there being survivors after the Great Chastisement too. I have a theory about this also (surprise, surprise!). Both Scripture and private revelations appear to suggest that the world will be destroyed by war - the battle of Armageddon. The fact that we are told that Christ will use a sword proceeding from His mouth to destroy the world bears enough testimony to this. Just as the world was created through the Word (the Alpha), so it will be destroyed by the very same Word that brought it into existence (the Omega).
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
(Rev 1:8)
"In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.
(Rev 1:16-18)
Notice that the last Word - the Omega, happens to be a sword issuing from the mouth of Christ, explaining the words:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
(Matt 10:34)
If the world is facing destruction through nuclear warfare, then there would definitely be survivors in the immediate short term aftermath. It would take many years for humanity to completely die off through lack of nutrition due to the collapse of agriculture during the following nuclear winter, and subsequent contamination.
It will only be after the great conflagration (and the final Passover of the Church) that we will see the destiny of humankind fulfilled in the General Resurrection and the creation of the new heaven and the new earth, when the wolf will lie down with the lamb. Perhaps the time of suffering for the last of the survivors waiting to die off will be shortened, and through some great grace, the Resurrection of the Dead will take place before the deaths of the last human beings. This would then explain 1 Thes 4:13ff as referring to the Great White Throne judgement at the General Resurrection (an event beyond history), rather than the Second Coming - which actually takes place within history.
Stephen,
Even just at the beginning of your book, you have done the Church a great service. The way in which you have collected together the various pronouncements of the popes concerning the significance of the two world wars in relation to Scripture is an invaluable resource to me. It seems that we are very much in concordance (along with several popes) that the two world wars were the fulfilment of Matt 24:7:
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom"
(Matt 24:7)
A thought: as Sr. Lucia stated that nuclear holocaust was averted in 1985 owing to the consecration of 1984, could we not understand that this was the catastrophe prophesied at Akita?
Thanks very much Emmett for your kind comments.I think bringing forth the prophetic charism of the popes was something that had not been done before, and I sensed over a long period of time that this was a missing link in books of an eschatological nature. What I have tried to do is present the very rich magisterial teachings covering the various signs Jesus gave as heralding His return, while presenting it in a way that is accessible to all Catholics as well as those of us who share a specific interest in these matters. I cannot deny that changing the millennial attitude of certain apparition devotees was also a desire.
If there is one lasting thing that comes from the book, I hope it is this last aspect, because as Emmett says very clearly, the entire notion of millenarianism is the desire of the Antichrist in creating an earthly Kingdom. And for me, the problem is that many well intentioned Catholics are being swayed by this theory while missing the very attitude called for by the Gospel- to stay awake for the coming of the Lord (in the fact that they dismiss as any possibility that we could be close to the end of the world). And as Jamey asked earlier, perhaps that is all part of Satan's deception.
Keith,
What it boils down to is this:
The Millennium is a reality.
Millenarianism is a heresy.
Amillenialism is but one interpretation of the Millennium, by no means the definitive interpretation - a point Cardinal Ratzinger made in 1990.
In condemning the false interpretations of the Millennium over the centuries, the Church has never ruled out the possibility of an era of peace. In fact, Christ and the Church COMMAND us to live in peace with ourselves, with others and with nature.
The Millennium is not the same thing as the Last Judgement or the Fulfillment of the Kingdom.
If you wish to continue to assert that the allegorical interpretation of the Millennium as the "church age" is THE DEFINITIVE interpretation, then please direct me to a Church document defining it in that sense.
Regarding an earlier comment on Garabandal and the "three popes" prophecy,
Garabandal remains an unapproved apparition and we should probably put more stock into approved private revelations.
However, I don't think this particular prophecy regarding the Popes was disproven.
In fact, it was the third Pope in that prophecy (PJPII) who said as Cardinal in 1976 that:
"We ARE NOW standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We ARE NOW facing the FINAL confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church… must take up."
If JP II is the 3rd pope, then Benedict XVI was the 4th pope. Since the warning did not happen in either of their reign, not likely to happen in pope Francis (5th pope) reign either. While Pope Francis seems like a nice man and humble, there has been no supernatural manifestation or power in the "angelic pope" reign (so far). Don't think pope Francis will be a wonder worker. There is no sign of redemption on his forehead either, which was to be a sign of God's favor. That is the problem with prophecy - most do NOT come true
Anon, one of my concerns is of Francis' health, it has been reported that he has struggled at times during public duties breathing heavily. It is really a big ask to be pope at that age, think I have mentioned before that I have seen 55 yr old's struggle with managing small insurance companies. Saying that with God's help anything is possible.
Emmett many thanks for the reply to my post.
"If the world is facing destruction through nuclear warfare, then there would definitely be survivors in the immediate short term aftermath. It would take many years for humanity to completely die off through lack of nutrition due to the collapse of agriculture during the following nuclear winter, and subsequent contamination."
Indeed as mentioned at Akita the survivors will envy the dead in such a scenario.
Hi Anon,
I agree, the age of Pope Francis is a great difficulty towards the possibility of him being the Angelic Pope. It would mean that he would have masses to accomplish over the course of a relatively short papacy. Although it looks like he will be pontiff during the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, and there are a quite a few signs pointing to the significance of this papacy in particular for some reason. Not only is he the last pope on St. Malachy's list (which doesn't really mean much on its own, since the authenticity of this is in doubt), but the Worthy Shepherd Prophecy also points to significance of this exact time period in relation to the Angelic Pope. And both these prophecies are known to have been made many hundreds of years ago.
The prophecies of Bl. Anna Maria Taigi suggest that the Angelic Pope will only have the gift of miracles towards the end of his reign:
"Then Christianity will spread throughout the world. He is the holy pontiff chosen by God to withstand the storm. At the end he will have the gift of miracles and his name shall be praised over the whole earth. Whole nations will join the Church shortly before the reign of the Antichrist."
That particular prophecy you mention is interesting, if it can verified as genuine:
"The Pope will go over the sea carrying the sign of redemption on his forehead, and after the victory of the Pope and the Great Monarch, peace will reign on earth."
(Abbot Werdin d'Ortante, 13th century)
The phrase "carrying the sign of redemption on his forehead" should be considered to be an allusion to the angel of the sixth seal in Rev 7, who marks the inhabitants of the earth with the seal of God before the destruction of the earth, rather than a literal physical mark:
"Then I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”
(Rev 7:2-3)
The seal of God symbolises baptism. Remember also that St. Bonaventure described the current pope's patron, St. Francis of Assisi, as being the angel of the sixth seal. I intend to write a more detailed post on this subject in the near future.
Also note that all of the above prophecies similarly point to a very short duration for the era of peace before "a monster will come to disturb it" (Our Lady to Maximin Giraud):
"Whole nations will join the Church SHORTLY before the reign of the Antichrist"
"after the victory of the Pope and the Great Monarch, peace will reign on earth"
And the four angels with the power to harm the earth and sea are only held back from doing so until all of God's people have been given the seal of God during the Second Pentecost.
"Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."
(1 Thes 5:1-3)
"Whole nations will join the Church SHORTLY before the reign of the Antichrist"
For the monster to come there must be still large clusters of nations who don't join the Church. If the entire world was thoroughly Catholic it would be difficult to envisage the monster being able to get a foothold unless there was another slow apostasy that eventually gathers momentum which seems unlikely given the era of peace will not be long and things will probably generally accelerate.
Anyone given much thought/research who on the earthly plane is the force behind the media. So far I have only found a hotch-potch of information. There seems the same message being pounded into western nations: pro gay "marriage", pro Babylonian lifestyle, pro-abort, anti-Christ ethos. The dominos are falling fast. I say earthly plane as we all know who is dangling the strings of these agents from the spiritual realm. Given the same currents are filtering through to different places, there is likely a central conscious organisation/person behind this which makes me think of potential one world government or something of that ilk.
You're right Jamey. I don't think that the Second Pentecost will be universal. The tares will exist along with the wheat right up until the Second Coming of Christ:
"Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”
(Rev 22:11)
It will simply bring in "the fullness of the Gentiles" - i.e. everyone who is inclined to Christ will come to Him. A lot of people simply do not want to belong to the light:
"And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."
(John 3:19-20)
There will be mass conversions, and some limited form of Christian unity will be established. But the secrets of La Salette foretell that for many this conversion will be short-lived, and that there would also be a falling away again after:
"A great king will go up on the throne, and will reign many years. Religion will re-flourish and spread all over the world, and there will be a great abundance. The world, glad to be lacking nothing, will fall again into disorder, will give up God, and will return to its criminal passions."
It seems to be drawing a comparison here to Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. If the Church is to follow Christ in its final Passover as the Catechism states, then the Second Pentecost is the triumphant entry before the crucifixion.
The secular media are being steered by the core principles of Freemasonry: "Liberty, equality, fraternity". These are the forces of Satan that have surrounded the Holy City after the "thousand years" were over, during the age of the Great Apostasy:
"And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city..."
(Rev 20:9)
Once they get what they want with gay marriage legalised worldwide guaranteed they will want more, they won't know what to do with themselves otherwise - as Fr Bill Casey said "The radicals will wreak havoc for a time".
There will likely be something unexpected next, they may well start pushing for a form of public nudity that is currently illegal, I can honestly see something like this happening. The slogans and falsehoods will be predictable: "It is natural", "it expresses me", "what about my personal freedom and rights", "they aren't killing anyone", "clothing was a medieval invention of the Catholic Church".
Not sure about other nations but the dress standard of women has significantly deteriorated in Oz in just the past 10 years and public nudity by some may well be the final step in that slippery slope.
Relating to your other comment Emmett, the chief media moguls must be Masons in that case. There is something I didn't hear in the news but from a friend in Melbourne - recently an abortion clinic doctor there was injecting women with contaminated syringes infecting 56 with hep c whilst feeding his own drug addiction.
Hi Rachmaninov,
Thanks, I am late to comment.
Heaven is silent and we must only believe, accept the "approved?"
To me this is nuts because we would hear more often from Heaven with the world so dark, the loss of faith. And the dismissal of all of these yet to be approved messages which agree with each other, calling them demonic. Satan would not speak lovingly of a Eucharistic reign. Plus, it is hypocritical, reading here, some "unapproved" are okay to believe, ie: locutions.org.
How come St. Faustina and others since Faustina have experienced a NDE like life review, a preview of the Great Warning? When is this suppose to happen, in the Eighth Day, at the Final Judgment? Can't be, God is coming soon not only at the end but "shortly" to act in mercy and justice.
God's justice is we will wish the rocks to fall on us seeing our lives in review and His loving mercy, all the world will then have a chance to change.
Here is mention of the "mini judgment", the Great Warning. How do you explain this prophesied "Minor Judgment?"
I put some words in CAPS, I can't underline.
Mary
~ ~ ~
“Pray…pray much, especially for the conversion of sinners” Humanity has not heeded my Blessed Mother who appeared at Fatima, to exhort everyone to pentience. Now I have come, in this last hour to admonish the world. The times are grave. Men should do penance for their sins…I am NEAR. The earth will tremble and will suffer. It will be terrific. A MINOR JUDGEMENT. For those who are not in a state of grace it will be frightful. The angels of my justice are now scattered across the world. Men do not listen to my calls. They close their ears, resist my graces and refuse my mercy, my love and my merits. They will agonize in the blindness of their faults. Hatred and greed fills the hearts of men. All this is the work of Satan. The world sleeps in a dense darkness. This generation deserves to be annihilated. I desire to show myself as merciful. Great and terrible things are being prepared. That which is about to happen will be terrible, like nothing ever since the beginning of the world. All those who have suffered in those last times are my martyrs and they prepare the NEWLY CONVERTED of my church. That which will SHORTLY happen, will greatly surpass everything that has ever happened until now. The Mother of God and the angels will intervene. Hell will believe that victory is theirs, but I will seize it from them. Many blaspheme Me and, because of this, I shall allow all kinds of misfortunes to rain upon the earth for, through this, many will be saved. Blessed are those who suffer everything in reparation for those who offend me. My beloved children the hour is near. Pray incessantly and you will not be confounded. I unite My elect. They will come together, at the SAME TIME, from ALL parts of the world and they will glorify Me. I come. Blessed are those who will be prepared. Blessed are those who hear me." - The Children of Heede, AD 1937
the main problem is that the false interpretation and enhanced interest in prophecies leads people not only form Jesus Christ and Scripture, but straightforward to heresy or, to heterodoxy, at best.
People are so fascinated with all those prophecies of the warnings/chastasements/miracles they tend to forget the basic Catholic Catechism and Catholic doctrine.
To the point that when the straightforward Catholic picture of the End of Times as is depicted in Stephen’s book is presented to them, the outcry is that it is not a mainstream point of view(sic!!!!) and the mainstream is a modified millenniaristic view of Fr.Ianuzzi and Mark Mallet. When the latter ones are being shown to use lies to prove their point, it is not them to be blamed for the lies ( and that should raise a red flag in any Catholic head – if somebody needs to lie to defend their viewpoint – stay away from that view) but the messenger, who is showing the lies is being accused of uncharitability.
Matthew 7:20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
May 3, 2013
Here is mention of the "mini judgment", the Great Warning. How do you explain this prophesied "Minor Judgment?"
I put some words in CAPS, I can't underline.
Mary
~ ~ ~
“Pray…pray much, especially for the conversion of sinners” Humanity has not heeded my Blessed Mother who appeared at Fatima, to exhort everyone to pentience. Now I have come, in this last hour to admonish the world. The times are grave. Men should do penance for their sins…I am NEAR. The earth will tremble and will suffer. It will be terrific. A MINOR JUDGEMENT. For those who are not in a state of grace it will be frightful. The angels of my justice are now scattered across the world. Men do not listen to my calls. They close their ears, resist my graces and refuse my mercy, my love and my merits. They will agonize in the blindness of their faults. Hatred and greed fills the hearts of men. All this is the work of Satan. The world sleeps in a dense darkness. This generation deserves to be annihilated. I desire to show myself as merciful. Great and terrible things are being prepared. That which is about to happen will be terrible, like nothing ever since the beginning of the world. All those who have suffered in those last times are my martyrs and they prepare the NEWLY CONVERTED of my church. That which will SHORTLY happen, will greatly surpass everything that has ever happened until now. The Mother of God and the angels will intervene. Hell will believe that victory is theirs, but I will seize it from them. Many blaspheme Me and, because of this, I shall allow all kinds of misfortunes to rain upon the earth for, through this, many will be saved. Blessed are those who suffer everything in reparation for those who offend me. My beloved children the hour is near. Pray incessantly and you will not be confounded. I unite My elect. They will come together, at the SAME TIME, from ALL parts of the world and they will glorify Me. I come. Blessed are those who will be prepared. Blessed are those who hear me." - The Children of Heede, AD 1937
+ + +
I didn't get an answer to my question. Oh well, I think I know the reason why.
The yet to be approved messages
line up with the approved messages
from Heaven. Private revelation is
a help to understand the times.
I can't get over how some posters here reject the Great Warning. When we see the celestial happen, the Cross in the sky, recall, God prepared us in current and past private revelation.
"I can't get over how some posters here reject the Great Warning. When we see the celestial happen, the Cross in the sky, recall, God prepared us in current and past private revelation."
The Cross in the sky will happen before the Second Coming of Christ - actually THAT will be His Sign.
Nobody is rejecting THAT as it is told us by Jesus Christ Himself and is in the CCC.
Everything else ( private revelations) are not obligatory to the faithful Catholics. Even approved ones.
and better to stay far away from unapproved.
To the point that when the straightforward Catholic picture of the End of Times as is depicted in Stephen’s book is presented to them, the outcry is that it is not a mainstream point of view(sic!!!!) and the mainstream is a modified millenniaristic view of Fr.Ianuzzi and Mark Mallet. When the latter ones are being shown to use lies to prove their point, it is not them to be blamed for the lies ( and that should raise a red flag in any Catholic head – if somebody needs to lie to defend their viewpoint – stay away from that view) but the messenger, who is showing the lies is being accused of uncharitability.
What lies are you referring to? I haven't seen any outright accusations that, for example, Mark Mallett is lying. He may be wrong, but you make a serious allegation if you suggest that his intent is to decieve.
Mark
You're right Mark. I think it is a mistake to accuse Fr. Iannuzzi and Mark Mallet of lying. I certainly don't think it is their intent to deceive. In fact, I've said many times here and on other posts that I respect their views. They may be guilty of using selective quoting to bolster their arguments, but I think this has more to do with seeing what they want to see, rather than deliberately forming a lie. They honestly believe their position on the millennium is correct, and they also honestly believe that it is not millenarianism. They just have a mistaken conception of what millenarianism actually entails, limiting its meaning purely to chiliasm (Christ reigning on earth in the Flesh before the General Resurrection and Last Judgement). But we know that the Catechism condemns even SECULAR forms of millenarianism (secular messianism) - so it is being used here in the widest sense of the word. You simply cannot have a secular version of Christ coming to reign in the Flesh - this is a contradiction in terms. The secular form of millenarianism which the Catechism is condemning is the extreme political wings of National Socialism and Communism, which were identified as a type of millenarianism in Norman Cohn's vastly influential work "In Pursuit of the Millennium". This work is the particular point of reference for the Catechism. So we know that the Catechism isn't just condemning the notion of Christ coming in the Flesh to rule for an era of peace, and that we are therefore free to believe in an invisible reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years. In condemning millenarianism, the Catechism is condemning every single idea that a utopia can be created on earth before the General Resurrection of the dead - including the mitigated form which posits a period of triumphant sanctity for the Church. The Catechism then points to the Cross, and states that this is the only way we can enter paradise.
What lies are you referring to? I haven't seen any outright accusations that, for example, Mark Mallett is lying. He may be wrong, but you make a serious allegation if you suggest that his intent is to decieve.
2 which I checked myself - one is filtering the Sy.Augustine quotes from the City of God and the other one is a quote from 1925 by the Pope, supposedly confirming the er of peace. Upon checkinthe whole encyclica turns out it is a part of the whole paragraph which has absolutely nothing to do with any are of peace.
Cutting and turning upside down the original quotes so they fit your view is a form of lie - it is done in order to make the reader think the quote is a support of the authors view and it is dishonest.
I'll post the exact quotes later - after I am at home. But those two I've checked myself, only two, since I do not have the time to check everything. The quotes were from MM blog
anon 11
Ok, here it goes:
Mark Mallett said:
In the ecclesiastically approved doctoral dissertation on Servant of God Luisa Picarretta's writings, she also explains how this coming of the Kingdom in the hearts of the faithful awaits the Church in a "new era". So, according to Catholic theology and Our Lord Himself, the "Kingdom of God is near"; it is not restrained nor limited to its definitive coming, as Pope Pius XI said,
The Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, [is] destined to be spread among all men and all nations… —Quas Primas, Encyclical, n. 12, Dec. 11th, 1925; cf. Matt 24:14
========================
Anon11 said:
http://www.love2learn.net/reviews/bkbteduc/mason.htm?page=11
12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. And, in fact, she used these titles, giving expression with wonderful variety of language to one and the same concept, both in ancient psalmody and in the Sacramentaries. She uses them daily now in the prayers publicly offered to God, and in offering the Immaculate Victim. The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.
=========
the latter is the WHOLE quote which in Mark's blog is taken out of context and manipulated to fit the agenda
Now on St.Augustine quote:
Mark writes:
St. Augustine clarified that, were it not for the Chiliasts’ beliefs attached to the millenium, that a period of peace or “sabbath
rest” is indeed a valid interpretation of Revelation 20. This is what the Church Fathers taught and was confirmed again by the Church’s Theological Commission in 1952.
…as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period [of a "thousand years"], a holy leisure after the labors of six thousand years since man was created… [and] there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years… And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath, shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God… —St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.; Church Doctor), De Civitate Dei, Bk. XX, Ch. 7, Catholic University of America Presss
just conviniently leaving behind the WHOLE quote:
Those who, on the strength of this passage, have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period, a holy leisure after the labors of the six thousand years since man was created, and was on account of his great sin dismissed from the blessedness of paradise into the woes of this mortal life, so that thus, as it is written, One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, 2 Peter 3:8 there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years; and that it is for this purpose the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath. And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians. It were a tedious process to refute these opinions point by point: we prefer proceeding to show how that passage of Scripture should be understood.
anon11
continued...
The Lord Jesus Christ Himself says, No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man — meaning by the strong man the devil, because he had power to take captive the human race; and meaning by his goods which he was to take, those who had been held by the devil in various sins and iniquities, but were to become believers in Himself. It was then for the binding of this strong one that the apostle saw in the Apocalypse an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a chain in his hand. And he laid hold, he says, on the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,— that is, bridled and restrained his power so that he could not seduce and gain possession of those who were to be freed. Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium— the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world— a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm
it is absolutely clear from the WHOLE quote from the "City of God" that St.Augustine refers to the CURRENT time and not any FUTURE to come - the CORE of the AMILLENNIALISM which is a DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church up until today, May3, 2013, no matter how does Mark Mallet cuts and twists the Chapter 7 of St.Augustine's book
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm:
St. Augustine was for a time, as he himself testifies (City of God XX.7), a pronounced champion of millenarianism; but he places the millennium after the universal resurrection and regards it in a more spiritual light (Sermo, CCLIX). When, however, he accepted the doctrine of only one universal resurrection and a final judgment immediately following, he could no longer cling to the principal tenet of early chiliasm. St. Augustine finally held to the conviction that there will be no millennium. The struggle between Christ and His saints on the one hand and the wicked world and Satan on the other, is waged in the Church on earth; so the great Doctor describes it in his work De Civitate Dei. In the same book he gives us an allegorical explanation of Chapter 20 of the Apocalypse. The first resurrection, of which this chapter treats, he tells us, refers to the spiritual rebirth in baptism; the sabbath of one thousand years after the six thousand years of history is the whole of eternal life — or in other words, the number one thousand is intended to express perfection, and the last space of one thousand years must be understood as referring to the end of the world; at all events, the kingdom of Christ, of which the Apocalypse speaks, can only be applied to the Church (City of God XX.5-7).
anon11
More on quote from Pius XI
NOWHERE an NEVER does Pius XI ( or any other Pope for that matter) defines this spreading among the nations and Church as a Kingdom of Christ on Earth ( which it is) as a FUTURE event which still has to happen. Catholic Church as a Kingdom of God has been spreading throughout the nations since Our Lord's Ascension into heaven in the first century - where it was several dozens to several hundreds of people in the Church and now, in 2013 we have a billion people all over the world.
and this is the whole quote from Pope's encyclica Quas Primas, upon reading of which one has clear understanding that the quote pertains not to imaginary millenialistic views of future spreading of the Kingdom of God, but CURRENT ( for the year of 1925) necessity and task: "should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. " and later the paragraph relates to some will say ecumenical reality of the catholic Church ( NOT and in the PAST, not the future).
anon11
"Cutting and turning upside down the original quotes so they fit your view is a form of lie - it is done in order to make the reader think the quote is a support of the authors view and it is dishonest."
Would have to agree with this.
Thanks for the effort of digging up all those other quotes and the original sources.
The false prophet has not appeared yet, but may be alive now, 2013, I would not be surprised if he was from a faith opposed to Christians...
Post a Comment