Question Number 1150:
My question is pertaining to AMILLENIALISM view of the church, which was established in second ecumenical council. As I read Revelation 20, one can interpret the first 1000 years up to the schism in 1054, and the next 1000 up to the second coming what we are living in now. The fathers that discredited millenialism theory lived around 400 AD, so they had no idea that there would be a schism. How can it be a coincident that the schism happened in 1054 (1000 years after Christ). Why didnt any church father visit this after the schism? Was there not a strong church father because of constant war in the region? Is it unorthodox to make this interpretation of the history of the world, considering how the literal interpretation of 1000 years in this case does make sense.
Amillenialism was not actually established at the Council of 381, please see:
Regarding the main part of the question, no ecclesiastical authority has ever suggested that the millennium has anything to do with the period following the 1054.
The whole point of the amillenial reading of Revelation is that 1000 year is a symbolic period, and this is the wise conclusion of the Orthodox consensus based on centuries on reception and reflection of the text of Revelation since St John's vision on Patmos. See the EOB NT Introduction to the book of Revelation for a discussion of this position.
If one insists on a literal 1000 years (see link above), then the view espoused by Justin or Irenaeus would be the only one having any credibility.