Excerpt: Section VIII - footnote #94 - Capacity for truth vs. operation of error

 

94.  One may possibly make an almost circular error in these verses: People do not love the truth, therefore the operation of error is sent, and they believe the antichrist in the end. But perhaps the operation of error is sent, people are found not to believe the truth, so the antichrist is sent. We have tried to explain it without falling into this circular perspective. Are those that are doomed ('them that perish') thus doomed before or after the operation of error is sent ? And is this operation of error sent to confirm them in their error, in that if people do not believe the truth while it was there, they believe in error when it is established instead ? (It seems to apply on different levels depending on the person: If people do not believe the truth, the operation of error is sent; but many do not believe the truth because the operation of error is sent. Perhaps they simply have to not believe the operation of error instead. This seems to harmonize with the 'reversal' occasioned by the book of life).

 

 

One may believe or disbelieve the Faith on faith alone, without 'confirmations' . If it were confirmed, it would not be faith anymore; it would enter the historical record as a plain fact. But that is not how it works.

It is another thing to believe the contradiction of the Faith on faith alone; this really would be an anti-Faith: A hope that the Faith turns out to be either not true or overcome. It is not certain this actually exists.

It is yet another to believe the contradiction of the Faith with confirmations (signs and wonders). That, too, would no longer be faith. As the 'operation of error' works to establish error as fact, so also does the antichrist seek to establish himself as fact.

So those who believe the contradiction and antithesis of the Faith as fact, rather confirm the actual Faith as faith although in opposition to it. (Similar to how the Church is still visible despite the usurpation of Vatican '2' due to its opposition by sedevacantists, who can still point to the true Church by identifying its false counterpart).

 

If the Faith were 'confirmed', it would not be faith anymore; conversely, if an 'anti-faith' were not thus 'confirmed'...it appears nothing would happen.

 

(As a rough analogy, of the Faith 'confirmed' in a sense by its opposition, if a first person was promised a free lunch by a second person for the next day, and a third person came the next morning and said 'but that person who made that promise died yesterday' and offered proofs, which were photoshopped, then it would be seen that the third person did not want the first person to benefit from the free lunch offered by the second. This would cause the first person to not keep the appointment, especially if he did not investigate the veracity of the third's claim. But the thing is, normally one would have no reason to undertake such an investigation).

 

To sum up: If the Faith were confirmed by wonders all can see, then to contradict it one would have to disbelieve the evidence. If the antithesis of the Faith were confirmed by wonders all can see, then to contradict it one would have to disbelieve the evidence. But in the latter case, it can be done only by Faith. In the former case, one would do it only by an anti-Faith, so to speak.