spauline
May 6th 2007, 12:58 AM
thought I'd share this about a question a fellow Catholic asked me:
Other Catholic:
Someone still has my book on the Rapture (cough cough CD cough cough) and I am trying to figure out how to formulate a response to the following question.
"If NOW is the Millennium, then what/when was the mark of the Beast? ... and when did the Millennium START?"
As I understand it, the Millennium started after the Ascension of Christ.
The mark of the beast, I don't think that is necessarily a literal mark but then again I've never been too clear what the symbol of it is...there's alot of theories.
I was raised with the whole 'rapture' mindset and some of that bleeds over at times and confuses me.
Scott's Reply:
Unfortunately, <"name omitted">, the real issue is that amill cannot fully address the question of the Millennium. You might check out my thread on "Mostly Wine but a little water" in the Lyceum, I believe.
Amill is mostly water, but a little wine. Chiliasm is pure wine. But Catholicism is neither of these. Catholicism is MOSTLY wine, but a little water. In that vein, chiliasm is actually CLOSER to the ultimate meaning of the Millennium than is amill. In the proper sense, it is absurd to say that the events of Revelation 12 are consummate with Revelation 20. How the hell can the dragon be chained in the abyss and at the same time be wreaking havoc on earth, with the flood, etc? But that's what you get with amill. Amill says: we are laboring against sin ("take up your cross") and, AT THE SAME TIME, resting ("for my burden is light..") .
This again is because the Church has assumed for centuries that the parable of the wheat and the tares is the ultimate expression of apoc theology, whiuch it most likely is not. I think the point of the parable of the wheat and tares is not so much apocalyptic as it is an expression of he fact that there will be scandal in Christ's Church.
I would rather suggest to you that the real and ultimate apocalyptic expressions of the mystery are the days of the creation and the beast. Toward that end, their picture sheds far more light on the matter: Amill is, there is light and darkness mixed together, gradually maturing toward the end. Hence, for them, the sky is black in the beginning and black at the end, with an ever maturing gray as the main brunt of history.
But the days of creation are not a continous gray. No, FIRST comes darkness ("evening came"), and THEN comes light ("and morning followed"), not "Well the sky is basically gray for most of Church history."
And this is really the way that Salvation history has gone. Salvation history is not a continuous gray ever maturing. It is rather "BACK AND FORTH". FIRST sin reigns ("evening came"), THEN it is redeemed ("and morning followed"). You don't believe me? Simply look at it.
First the darkness of the Fall, which descends rather quickly into the near total wickedness of Noah's day. But it is redeemed (the Flood).
Then the dark attempt at a materialistic dominion of Babel, but redeemed through the confounding of languages and the calling Abraham.
Then the darkness of Egyptian slavery follows, followed by the light of the Exodus and Promised Land.
Then the Jews gradually fall into apostasy, but they are chastised and restored by light to love of God through the exile and return to homeland.
then the OT Antichrist viciously persecutes them, followed by the ultimate light and the coming of the Messiah. Note, this is number five.
But no sooner does Christ come than the sun sets again in pagan persecution and resistance to conversion. But the sun rises gloriously with Catholic Christendom. And note this is day six.
And herein, Genesis connects. There are two stories of creation in Genesis. In one, God creates man on the SIXTH day, and in another , He creates them on the FIRST day. Not petty stuff here. For there is meaning with this. For in the SIXTH age of salvation history, God did indeed RE-create man in His Image by restoring him to grace by bringing multitudes of the Gentiles into the light of Christ, placing the sanctifying grace back into him, grace that he had lost with the fall.
And, yet, in another sense, even in the FIRST age of Salvation history, with the Flood, God was beginning to redeem man. Indeed, the Flood cleansed the earth of sin and began anew. And so, in another sense, God was already RE-creating man in his image starting on the first day.
Now back to where we were: Catholic Christendom of the Middle Ages was clearly only age SIX, but there are EIGHT days of Creation, not merely seven. For the seventh day is the OLD Sabbath, but the ultimate Sabbath is the eighth day, on which Christ Rose from the dead, and on which all the world will be resurrected at the New Creation.
So the problem with amill is that it allegorically explains away the Millennium and says that day SIX is the SAME DAY as SEVEN, because, evidently, we are BOTH working and resting. But the general mystics of fully approved Private Rev mostly do not agree with this pessimism. For they speak of an intermediate apostasy and tribulation to occur BEFORE the ones of the very end of the world, and that will be followed by a glorious Age of Peace, in which Christians will be reunited, the world RE-converted to the Catholic Church, and a period of great spiritual prosperity in which sin becomes significantly lessened, that is, like an IMPERFECT rest for God’s People.
Only after the age of peace will there occur the EIGHTH manifestation of sin in history, the GREAT apostasy and AC. And that shall be followed by the light of the Second Coming and aforementioned New Creation itself.
Hence, the real meaning of the Millennium is not only not chiliasm, but not amill either. The Millennium is rather the glorious age of peace that we are on the verge of, that is, after perhaps the Minor Chastisement, if humanity does not repent in time.
The Beast then can apply to our own day. I have an article of how to look at the Beast and False Prophet from a mystical sense if you interested.
Blessings to you, <"name omitted">!
Scott
JMJ
Other Catholic:
Someone still has my book on the Rapture (cough cough CD cough cough) and I am trying to figure out how to formulate a response to the following question.
"If NOW is the Millennium, then what/when was the mark of the Beast? ... and when did the Millennium START?"
As I understand it, the Millennium started after the Ascension of Christ.
The mark of the beast, I don't think that is necessarily a literal mark but then again I've never been too clear what the symbol of it is...there's alot of theories.
I was raised with the whole 'rapture' mindset and some of that bleeds over at times and confuses me.
Scott's Reply:
Unfortunately, <"name omitted">, the real issue is that amill cannot fully address the question of the Millennium. You might check out my thread on "Mostly Wine but a little water" in the Lyceum, I believe.
Amill is mostly water, but a little wine. Chiliasm is pure wine. But Catholicism is neither of these. Catholicism is MOSTLY wine, but a little water. In that vein, chiliasm is actually CLOSER to the ultimate meaning of the Millennium than is amill. In the proper sense, it is absurd to say that the events of Revelation 12 are consummate with Revelation 20. How the hell can the dragon be chained in the abyss and at the same time be wreaking havoc on earth, with the flood, etc? But that's what you get with amill. Amill says: we are laboring against sin ("take up your cross") and, AT THE SAME TIME, resting ("for my burden is light..") .
This again is because the Church has assumed for centuries that the parable of the wheat and the tares is the ultimate expression of apoc theology, whiuch it most likely is not. I think the point of the parable of the wheat and tares is not so much apocalyptic as it is an expression of he fact that there will be scandal in Christ's Church.
I would rather suggest to you that the real and ultimate apocalyptic expressions of the mystery are the days of the creation and the beast. Toward that end, their picture sheds far more light on the matter: Amill is, there is light and darkness mixed together, gradually maturing toward the end. Hence, for them, the sky is black in the beginning and black at the end, with an ever maturing gray as the main brunt of history.
But the days of creation are not a continous gray. No, FIRST comes darkness ("evening came"), and THEN comes light ("and morning followed"), not "Well the sky is basically gray for most of Church history."
And this is really the way that Salvation history has gone. Salvation history is not a continuous gray ever maturing. It is rather "BACK AND FORTH". FIRST sin reigns ("evening came"), THEN it is redeemed ("and morning followed"). You don't believe me? Simply look at it.
First the darkness of the Fall, which descends rather quickly into the near total wickedness of Noah's day. But it is redeemed (the Flood).
Then the dark attempt at a materialistic dominion of Babel, but redeemed through the confounding of languages and the calling Abraham.
Then the darkness of Egyptian slavery follows, followed by the light of the Exodus and Promised Land.
Then the Jews gradually fall into apostasy, but they are chastised and restored by light to love of God through the exile and return to homeland.
then the OT Antichrist viciously persecutes them, followed by the ultimate light and the coming of the Messiah. Note, this is number five.
But no sooner does Christ come than the sun sets again in pagan persecution and resistance to conversion. But the sun rises gloriously with Catholic Christendom. And note this is day six.
And herein, Genesis connects. There are two stories of creation in Genesis. In one, God creates man on the SIXTH day, and in another , He creates them on the FIRST day. Not petty stuff here. For there is meaning with this. For in the SIXTH age of salvation history, God did indeed RE-create man in His Image by restoring him to grace by bringing multitudes of the Gentiles into the light of Christ, placing the sanctifying grace back into him, grace that he had lost with the fall.
And, yet, in another sense, even in the FIRST age of Salvation history, with the Flood, God was beginning to redeem man. Indeed, the Flood cleansed the earth of sin and began anew. And so, in another sense, God was already RE-creating man in his image starting on the first day.
Now back to where we were: Catholic Christendom of the Middle Ages was clearly only age SIX, but there are EIGHT days of Creation, not merely seven. For the seventh day is the OLD Sabbath, but the ultimate Sabbath is the eighth day, on which Christ Rose from the dead, and on which all the world will be resurrected at the New Creation.
So the problem with amill is that it allegorically explains away the Millennium and says that day SIX is the SAME DAY as SEVEN, because, evidently, we are BOTH working and resting. But the general mystics of fully approved Private Rev mostly do not agree with this pessimism. For they speak of an intermediate apostasy and tribulation to occur BEFORE the ones of the very end of the world, and that will be followed by a glorious Age of Peace, in which Christians will be reunited, the world RE-converted to the Catholic Church, and a period of great spiritual prosperity in which sin becomes significantly lessened, that is, like an IMPERFECT rest for God’s People.
Only after the age of peace will there occur the EIGHTH manifestation of sin in history, the GREAT apostasy and AC. And that shall be followed by the light of the Second Coming and aforementioned New Creation itself.
Hence, the real meaning of the Millennium is not only not chiliasm, but not amill either. The Millennium is rather the glorious age of peace that we are on the verge of, that is, after perhaps the Minor Chastisement, if humanity does not repent in time.
The Beast then can apply to our own day. I have an article of how to look at the Beast and False Prophet from a mystical sense if you interested.
Blessings to you, <"name omitted">!
Scott
JMJ