CathInfo.com

DL, aren’t you a covert?  The “1,000 years” idea, also known as millenialism is condemned.  It’s a Protestant creation.

No, I'm not preaching millenialism. Did you read anything I wrote or did you just glean over it because you've been studying this for a while and fancy yourself an expert? I literally just quoted two pre-Vatican II, orthodox, Catholic commentators who talk about the Thousand years:

and the number of wicked shall grow larger as time goes on. These THOUSAND YEARS are stated in round numbers to denote a period of peace for the Church from Antichrist till the rise of Gog and Magog, and they may be two thousand or several thousand. According to the words of Isaias ( LXV. 2 0 ), a period of only ONE thousand years would seem far too short to bring into actuality in a literal sense what is promised there.

After many centuries, symbolized by a thousand years, faith will diminish and charity grow cold as a result of the long peace and security enjoyed by the Church.

I highly suggest you get some books which explain what the Church Farhers say.  They are part of Tradition, of Apostolic knowledge, which is on par with Scripture.  Some of what you believe is contrary to Tradition.

What part of it? You mistakenly believing that I was pushing millennialism? I didn't even state any length of years for either the age preceding the Antichrist or the age of peace. And stating that the 7th age is the eternal reign of Christ and the blessed after the Last Judgment is not millenialism.
And as for books, I'm drawing from two very solid exegeses on the Apocalypse from before Vatican II. Not to mention the collections afforded by the articles of Yves Dupont and the Christian Trumpet.

Ok, I misunderstood.


St Augustine has a different take than Berry/Kramer, FYI.

You're right, he does. Fr. Kramer states in a note after his Bibliography that he avoided relying so much on the Fathers since they tend toward the spiritual interpretation more than the literal.

The commentaries and interpretations of the great Doctors of the fourth and later centuries and of the theologians of the Middle Ages have been skipped, because they gave the interpretation of the Apocalypse a purely “spiritual” direction, even before St. Augustine. Only modern scholars and theologians and scripturists have searched more deeply into the writings of ancient Fathers and into the prophetical books and fragments of prophecies of the Old Testament. They have come nearer to the true meaning of the prophetical visions and words of the Apocalypse than the doctors and theologians of the Middle Ages.

I understand why he would say this, because of the larger selection of resources available to contemporary exegetes compared to the past. As well as the potential for us being "closer" to the unveiling of these prophecies given all that has occurred between the age of the Fathers, the Middle Ages and today. For example, the opening of the seals, in both Berry and Kramer, looks at the various heresies of the Church over time; something unknown to some of earlier Fathers who were either actively fighting those heresies at the time, or, that they would come later. Specifically the "opening of the Abyss" being associated, I believe in Kramer, with the Protestant Revolt and all that came of that over the past 500 years.

This isn't me trying to dismiss the insights of the Fathers and Doctors, but, when it comes to the Apocalypse, it seems more prudent to take a more recent (but thoroughly orthodox) commentary given all that has occurred in Church history; especially in light of the Apocalypse being by-and-large a prophecy of the Church herself.