Why did so many Early Church Fathers believe in the Millenium of the Apocalypse?

[JJoseph]

I was reading this from St. Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus" (On Illustrious Men) the other day, and a question came up: why did so many Early Church Fathers and Saints believe in the Millenium?

St. Jerome writes on St. Papias: "He is said to have published a Second coming of Our Lord or Millennium. Irenæus and Apollinaris and others who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints, follow him. Tertullian also in his work On the hope of the faithful, Victorinus of Petau and Lactantius follow this view." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

Catholics usually use an argument like this with Protestants: St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, clearly taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Therefore, that doctrine was orally transmitted to him by the Apostle, and is certainly true. And rightly so. But why wouldn't similar apply here?

Agreed. But why wouldn't something similar apply to the Millenium, or Period of Peace? Saint John the Apostle firstly in plain language teaches it in Revelation 20 thus: "The Thousand Years 20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time." This is first of all reminiscent of Pope Leo XIII's prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. Secondly, Ven. Fr. Bartholomew Holzhauser, of whom other Catholic commentators have said, "after reading Ven. Fr. Bartholomew's commentaries on the Apocalypse, all the other interpreters of the Apocalypse have seemed to me but children", speaks of a Period of Peace "of long, long duration" after Satan is bound up, in very similar terms to this Apocalyptic Prophecy. Apocalypse is not at all a book of doom, gloom and despair. It is a prophetic book of many warnings that ends in a Period of Peace and of great hope, when taken on face value. That interpretation is confirmed by many Early Church Fathers, and Saints, including those who knew St. John personally, and later Catholic writers like Venerable Father Bartholomew. Even Our Lady prophecies a Period of Peace. Also, the interpretation that Satan is currently bound up is very forced, contrary to reality and 1 Pet 5:8: "Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." Hardly bound up, and the Pope Leo XIII Prayer confirms this, as does everyday experience. If Satan is bound up now, as theories that reject the Millenium claim, then, boy, the world surely doesn't look like it!

Please note we are not talking of a Protestant millenialism, with ecclesiastical divisions and denial of the Holy Eucharist. We are talking of an ecclesiastical and Eucharistic Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ as King reigning through His Church, with Christendom restored and more peaceful and prosperous than ever before after men repent fully and turn back to God. Also, the 1000 years can be "metaphorical", but they certainly are of "long, long duration" as Fr. Bartholomew says. Who can say absolutely that it is impossible, when Scripture, Tradition and many Catholic Saints have spoken of something very much like it?

[JJoseph]

"Church fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian all defended a physical millennium as part of their theology and defense for the Christian faith."

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/historic-premillennialism

And from our very own Catholic Encyclopedia: "among Catholics, Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of St. John, appeared as an advocate of millenarianism. He claimed to have received his doctrine from contemporaries of the Apostles, and Irenaeus narrates that other "Presbyteri", who had seen and heard the disciple John, learned from him the belief in millenarianism as part of the Lord's doctrine." ... St. Irenæus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor, influenced by the companions of St. Polycarp, adopted millenarian ideas, discussing and defending them in his works against the Gnostics (Adv. Haereses, V, 32). He developed this doctrine mainly in opposition to the Gnostics, who rejected all hopes of the Christians in a happy future life, and discerned in the glorious kingdom of Christ on earth principally the prelude to the final, spiritual kingdom of God, the realm of eternal bliss. St. Justin of Rome, the martyr, opposes to the Jews in his Dialogue with Tryphon (ch. 80-1) the tenet of a millennium and asserts that he and the Christians whose belief is correct in every point know that there will be a resurrection of the body and that the newly built and enlarged Jerusalem will last for the space of a thousand years, but he adds that there are many who, though adhering to the pure and pious teachings of Christ, do not believe in it. A witness for the continued belief in millenarianism in the province of Asia is St. Melito, Bishop of Sardes in the second century. He develops the same train of thought as did St. Irenæus."

Some Catholic theologians of the nineteenth century championed a moderate, modified millenarianism, especially in connection with their explanations of the Apocalypse; as Pagani (The End of the World, 1856), Schneider (Die chiliastische Doktrin, 1859), Rohling (Erklärung der Apokalypse des hl. Iohannes, 1895; Auf nach Sion, 1901), Rougeyron Chabauty (Avenir de l'Église catholique selon le Plan Divin, 1890).

From: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm

[james03]

Catholics usually use an argument like this with Protestants: St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, clearly taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Therefore, that doctrine was orally transmitted to him by the Apostle, and is certainly true. And rightly so. But why wouldn't similar apply here?

They are different.  The PRACTICE of the Mass, e.g. the Consecration, date back to at least St. Ignatius.  That is the point.  The Real Presence was not hatched up by Catholics, it was how we conducted liturgy as far back as we can trace.  Furthermore, I'm not aware of Catholics saying this belief is based on oral Tradition.  It is based on the Bible.

Finally, historically there aren't any "Old Christians" that deny the Real Presence.  The belief is part of both the Greek and Roman churches.

What you are discussing is the interpretation of a future prophesy.

[Michael Wilson]

The Holy Office declared on two occasions that it was "not safe" to hold to the opinion of Milenarianism; that should be enough for any Catholic.

[JJoseph]

Yes, James, the Real Presence is 100% Truth. Biblical and Apostolic Truth. No argument there. I was just saying similar arguments would apply to some concept of a Millenial Period of Peace, for which there is significant patristic support.

Wilson, I can also say, the Second Vatican Council declared there is a right to religious freedom, so whatever Scripture or Tradition says is irrelevant. The Holy Office was referring to particular forms of Protestant millenialism, not the moderate and modified form mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia as held by Catholic theologians.

Here is Ven. Fr. Bartholomew Holzhauser: "And neither of the two adversaries will conquer nor be vanquished. Both mighty ones will lie on the ground, and a new mankind will come into existence. God possesses the key to everything. Blessed is he who will then be able to praise him, having obeyed all his commandments. And the great monarch of the world will create new laws for the new mankind and will cause a new age to begin, in which there will be only one flock and one shepherd, and peace will be of long, long duration, for the glory of God in heaven and on earth..."He will root out false doctrines and destroy the rule of Moslemism. His dominion will extend from the East to the West. All nations will adore God their Lord according to the Catholic teaching. There will be many wise and just men. The people will love justice, and peace will reign over the whole earth, for divine power will bind Satan for many years until the coming of the Son of Perdition."

From: https://propheciesoftheworld.com/Barthalomew_Holzhauser_Prophecy.htm

[Michael Wilson]

Wilson, I can also say, the Second Vatican Council declared there is a right to religious freedom, so whatever Scripture or Tradition says is irrelevant. The Holy Office was referring to particular forms of Protestant millenialism, not the moderate and modified form mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia as held by Catholic theologians.

On the Vatican declaring the right to religious freedom; yes you are correct; I am aiming my response to those Neanderthal extreme right wingers who have not yet "woken up" 
On the declarations of the Holy Office; these specifically mentioned the "moderate or mitigated" milinarianim:

Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944

2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.

[james03]

I was just saying similar arguments would apply to some concept of a Millenial Period of Peace, for which there is significant patristic support.

You can't make a "similar" argument for two separate concepts: Praxis vs. Prophetic interpretation.

In the former, you have the praxis of past and present supported by the Bible.

In the latter, you have one interpretation of a Biblical prophesy about the future.