Footnotes - IX. The Arrangement Of Apocalypse And Final Notes/Two Timelines Signs

 

97.  It has been thought by some (and us) that the number of saved may replace the number of angels who had fallen from Heaven. While this may be true, it is probably not the whole plan. We see that the former places of the fallen angels are there no longer (Apoc. 12:8), if that is what the verse means; if not, then it might be redundant as it is already said they 'prevailed not', and the next verse says they are cast out. What we mean to say is that verse eight indicates the same thing twice or there are two different things indicated: They 'prevailed not' and 'neither was their place found any more in heaven'. We take this to mean that they lost the battle and the places where they formerly occupied in Heaven are no longer there. We also think it does not mean their former places, before their fall, are now taken by the saints; we think they are removed as though they never were, and there is a new arrangement, of which the saints occupy the major part.

This seems to parallel the attempt in the world today to dispossess Europeans as though they never existed, as a vengeful plot. But that is not to be discussed here. To continue:

 

If the fallen angels' former place still existed in Heaven prior to the battle, they might have thought it gave them some kind of leverage to wage the battle; perhaps they thought to defeat God's plan by preventing the number who are to replace them to be filled up. There is no way of knowing what it is that they sought to accomplish, specifically, or whether they had got within a reasonable distance of their goal.

 

98.  As we think St. Joseph is the apparition to St. John in Apocalypse chapter one, we think he hand a hand in arranging all of this. He had to keep a secret as well, when his spouse Mary was found "with child, of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:18) and, "being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately", that is, to make provision for Her well-being in a private manner (Matt. 1:19), but then he was informed, in a dream, by "the Angel of the Lord". who is probably St. Michael (Matt. 1:20), what had happened and why. Thus, he did his duty before the Lord while keeping the secret.

98A.  Some might argue that Pius XII lost the papacy and that is why he did not read the third secret or fulfill Our Lady's requests. In that case, one might as well suspect his definition of the Assumption (1950) as well. But it could have been afterwards. We argue that he did not fall from the papacy and that is why he did not do the consecration. We might also argue that if he did fall from the papacy, performed the consecration, and Russia did not convert, that it is an impossible scenario; i.e. Heaven would not allow it. The other impossible scenario we have already said: That he would be able to reveal the third secret without the conversion of Russia. Neither of them would fit either of the two timelines. The whole thing would be chaotic. But the overall point is we believe it was papal infallibility which the devil tried to defeat and which led to the opening of the seals.

 

One other thing we should mention is this: In this timeline, the second, without the book of life, it looks like a 'worst case scenario' for souls, and it is, until the book is unsealed. But that only means another 'worst case scenario' has arrived: The antichrist, who comes to deceive all that they may lose their place in the book of life. Up to that point, we cannot be sure how 'worst' the worst case scenario turned out for them. We believe there is a reason for this.

In the other timeline, the first, the 'worst case scenario' begins after the period of peace; the world had become Catholic (every nation, if not everyone), but now the antichrist, as well as the false prophets, come to deceive people about the second coming. This last deception would be to lead people away from the Church in a way analogous to, in our timeline, the antichrist leading people away from the book of life. But they are not the same; it does not mean that, in the other timeline, the book of life is opened and done another way. In the other timeline nothing of the sort we have found for our own timeline, regarding the unsealing of the book of life, is to be found, or would have been found. Again we emphasize St. John's eating the 'little book open' which, though it tasted sweet as honey, made his stomach bitter (Apoc. 10:10).

98B.  When it is actually unsealed the process of removing names begins when the people then living choose the antichrist over the truth. It is not known whether the worst sinners up until then are removed immediately, but this is probably in the negative: Their judgement does not come until the Last Judgement: In Apoc. 20:12 the comparison is made between the 'books' of each individual and the book of life, and then "they were judged every one according to their works" (Apoc. 20:12-13). At the end, "hell and death were cast into the pool of fire" (Apoc. 20:14) and then "whosoever was not found written in the book of life" follows (Apoc. 20:15). In this ordering we find that the final result of the comparison does not arrive until the very end; whosoever was not found written in the book of life is as a result of the 'comparison' of Apoc. 20:12-13; not before. The main difference between the dead of verse twelve and thirteen is that one seems to concern the last generation, probably from the end of the period of peace. The second death is identified in verse fourteen as the 'pool of fire'. It may be said that those who belonged to 'death and hell' in verse thirteen were thus cast into the pool of fire, but as they were being judged, it is not yet; Knox puts it as "...each man was judged according to his deeds, while death and hell were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death;" (emphasis ours). The reverse ordering of the words in the Challoner translation, 'death and hell', then 'hell and death', means to us, in line with Knox's translation, that while the Final Judgement is going on, 'hell and death' were cast into the pool of fire; but those who were taken out of it in the meantime were being judged; it is after everything else that 'whosoever was not found written in the book of life' was then cast into the pool of fire. 

 

Knox writes it as "everyone must be thrown into this lake of fire, unless his name was found written in the book of life" (emphasis ours). This reflects the default state of death for all sinners, if it were not for the Redemption and the forgiveness of sins, and except for the book of life, unsealed by the Redeemer. But names are not added to the book after it is unsealed (it is not the baptism); afterwards, they may retain their place or be perhaps restored to it (in this, it is like the baptism and the forgiveness of sins).

98C.  The dogmas of the judgement of the soul immediately after death also do not have reference to the book of life. As we have said elsewhere, the particular judgement takes place when the soul is separated from the body; when the book of life is unsealed in the meantime what effect might that have ? We do not consider it a distinction without a difference. It must make a difference, otherwise the Apocalypse is redundant. Christ is the Word, and what He says is true: So when at the particular judgement He gives an unfavourable judgement, that is true, as the book of life is sealed and has no application. Afterwards, when it is unsealed (and the comparison of Apoc. 20:12-13 is done), He might instead find that soul in the book of life and then pronounce His judgement, which is true, as then the book of life is unsealed, has application, and the soul is reunited to the body whereas at the particular judgement the soul is without the body. In short: The particular is of the soul alone while the book is sealed; the general is of the soul and body when the book is open. This is the only way to resolve the differences without contradiction.

98D.  This would be an example of the Boolean logical OR: Condition (saved/preserved) is true if one OR the other (baptism or book of life) is true; but it is true if book of life is 'true' in both cases (baptism & book of life or just book) but not if it is the baptism but not the book of life (having lost the grace of baptism or its perseverance); but it can be only the baptism if the book of life is sealed. The last part is true forever if the second timeline did not come to pass.

99.  It must be emphasized that Heaven's not saying anything about the book of life does not constitute a lie. It is rather an omission. Revelation told us everything we need to know for salvation; if the book of life and its application were known immediately, the devil would have used this to undermine the will of the Church's members, so that they might not try hard as they did; and then events would not have led to its being unsealed at all. And that would indeed be a tragedy. It is also a paradox.

99A.  Along this line of inquiry one can proceed no further with any certitude. There is no certitude as far as it has come either; but if one had to purely speculate it might be that it was foreseen that, due to the devil's malice, the Church might not make it to the end of her chartered course (to the time when it was ordained the end should come, and the antichrist), and that some kind of intervention might well become necessary.

The question is not of Our Lord's infinite merits being short of what is required (that is not possible) but their application. Their application is through the Church; and this may become short of what is required.

But having done so much to establish the Church, it does not seem as though God were willing to set 'the game', as it were, up in a way that it could not fail. That would be cheating, if one can call it that. And the papacy was already established as an infallible point. What more can be done to ensure against the devil's malice ?

As it turns out, there was something which can be used: The book of life. But some kind of trade-off might be required. If it were too easy, it would not be merited, and would not avail against sins.

So the book of life could not simply be opened; Our Lord's merits have acquired it, but something else is required for Him to open it (or, rather, Our Lord's merits have paid for what was beforehand acquired, to be strictly accurate).

That is, possibly, how and why there came to be two timelines. In presenting it this way, it is not to give the impression that Heaven was trying to figure out what to do; instead, there is about it a sort of deliberateness which resembles the scenes St. John saw, and participated, in Apocalypse chapters four and five.

100.  The question is not answered directly at this time, except for Limbo. If the unsealing of the book of life has the effect of the nullification of original sin, then the question is answered for those in Limbo (if such are not for Heaven, then for the new earth for certain. As for what form their Resurrection might take, this cannot be answered in any definite way). This also raises the question of the relation of the Church with the book of life itself. A heresy of Vatican '2' is that 'the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church'. True enough, except that it does not exclude the possibility of other arrangements also subsisting in the Universal Church; so the intent behind that statement reveals it to be heretical. The word (subsists) more accurately describes the relationship of the Catholic Church with the book of life: 'The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church which subsists in the Book of Life'. (The Church and the book of life cannot be the same thing, otherwise why was it sealed ?). It will not be surprising if the antichrist conflates his Vatican '2' construct with the book of life (see "Flipping The Script").

100A.  There is no way to be exact, or even proximate, on this. We are in new territory with the Apocalypse. All we know is that there must be a change which cannot be approximated at this time. At this point we may bring up the epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8). Is this a new Gospel, or is preaching the 

warning against antichrist (to remain in the book of life, which is a primary point here) simply the 'flip side' of preaching that Christ is the way to salvation ? Warning that antichrist is the way to damnation is the 'reverse image' of what came before, which is possibly what the Shroud of Turin means. This whole thing 'turned' upon one point: The papacy. As Christ came, so also must antichrist come eventually; but he could not come unless and until the papacy were 'taken out of the way'. This is the 'true edge' as it were; between one side and the other on this, it narrows to a point of non-existence, but does not actually get to that point. That is the closest we can approximate this paradox.

 

101.  "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Apoc. 21:8).

 

"There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb" (Apoc. 21:27).

"Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie" (Apoc. 22:15).

 

102.  What is meant that it will be done according to the rules God Himself established from the beginning. He will not override Himself in this regard. Even if it appears the book of life itself is an 'override' - but it is more of an escape clause for poor sinners, if the devil's malice has warranted it (as we have seen). We cannot know what it is or how it may be done, but it is deduced that such an 'operation' (for lack of a better term) must exist, as the book of life exists to provide an occasion for it. Nevertheless, this remains one of those speculations about which one cannot take any further. But to illustrate what we mean there is a scene from The Princess Bride (1987) in which the solution to the problem was prepared years prior, without any hint beforehand that it was there; and, it should be added, without the character having foreknowledge that it would become useful one day; or, rather, foreknowledge of when, where and how it would be useful. We think it is like that somehow, but it can be taken no further at this time.

 

103.  Although this is of the first timeline, it nevertheless means the same thing in the second, whensoever the seventh angel shall arrive: "And the seventh angel sounded the trumpet: and there were great voices in heaven, saying: The kingdom of this world is become our Lord’s and his Christ’s, and he shall reign for ever and ever. Amen" (Apoc. 11:15). However, we must be careful not to mix the timelines. In this case it is not necessary to repeat the action or its meaning in the text of Apocalypse for the second timeline, if it was always going to be the same either way. This would be an example of common elements not repeated which can be gleaned through a Boolean logical 'AND' operation (if it is true here AND there).

104.  As has been said, those who show no interest in the truth are, in a sense, doomed to go straight to the antichrist as if salvation is to be found there. They build this up against themselves repeatedly, by consent to the errors of the 'operation of error', until it comes to fruition when the antichrist comes into his own and Apoc. 13:8 and 17:8 is becoming fulfilled. Having 'trained' themselves in untruth, they will not believe the truth about the antichrist, but will see him as the 'saviour' of the world after the sixth seal event (Apoc. 6:12-17) which will be called the 'Warning' (Garabandal, the false prophecy to be fulfilled which is also the fulfillment, in part at least, of 2 Thess. 2:9 regarding 'signs and lying wonders'); having thus seen their sins but not the truth, they will believe the antichrist who declares himself above sin and is the truth.

 

105.  A love of truth of some sort, and on some level. In the end, though, it is not a grey area, but really is black-and-white. Whether people love the truth enough is the grey area.

 

106.  They who have no doubt about the Rosary will not have felt anything during the sixth seal event, during which many thought the world was coming to the end and the Final Judgement had arrived (Apoc. 6: 15-17). However, Garabandal's false promise, especially when it inevitably fails, will be an occasion of doubt for many.

 

107.  It would be easy enough to predict that nearly all on 'the left' will go to antichrist and many on 'the right' will not, but it probably will not be as simple as that. The antichrist is going to be of the sort to appeal to both, with the 'general accusation' (the 'Warning') as a common factor to all. Many may, at first, 'adore' the beast without thinking about it, whether or not they are 'locked' into that position is not known for sure; but St. Paul seems to indicate that it is so, by referring to them as those 'that perish'. The indications are such that when the temple in heaven is 'closed' (Apoc. 15:8) no one indeed may convert and be saved; at the least, that it might be true ought to be seen as the final warning (see also "Third Secret Martyrdom Vision...").

 

108.  The 'primary' beast which came up out of the sea with seven 'heads' (in succession) is the antipapacy established since 1958; the second beast which came up out of the earth with 'two horns, like a lamb, and spoke as a dragon' is the false prophet, but it is not known yet whom he might be specifically. As he makes the 'image of the beast he might be technically proficient. The 'image' of the beast is an A.I. reproduction of Karol Wojtyla (antipope John Paul 2) 'which had the wound by the sword, and lived' through the 1981 assassination attempt on him. It has been suggested that this assassination attempt was designed to fail, i.e. it was staged, but that does not matter to the Apocalypse. What it adds up to is what is in the verses.

 

The world by now (Nov. 2025) has known AI for several years now but despite knowing what to expect will take this image of the beast seriously because it will be 'guaranteed' by the antichrist, who is the 'eighth': one of the seven 'heads' returned from the dead (Apoc. 17:11). It might be seen as a kind of 'substitute priest' or actually be a kind of 'anti-guardian angel' or both in which instead of guarding his charge, speaks against others: "And it was given him to give life to the image of the beast, and that the image of the beast should speak; and should cause, that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast, should be slain" (Apoc. 13:15).

This image, which gives a direct link to the image of the beast to all who accept it individually, might be a kind of system in which all who are opposed to the beast may be 'reported' that they may be captured or killed. This is a high tech version of 'state security' in the style of the old Soviet Union.

 

109.  If he acknowledges it, which we believe he must, it is difficult to see what other line he can take. Denying it is of no use, unless he declares the whole Apocalypse 'cancelled' as per the 'little book' being consumed in chapter ten. How he may engage with Apocalypse is explored a little further in "Flipping The Script".

 

110.  The significance of the opening of the book in chapter five has not hitherto been examined; but this chapter and the one preceding it is not about events as they unfold on earth, but purely from the perspective of the Beatific Vision in Heaven. When the Lamb 'took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne' and then opened the book, the interval therein are the opening of the seals (chapters six and eight), as signified by the canticle sung by the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," (Apoc. 5:9). In other words, this perspective (chapters 4-5) is not that perspective (chapter 6-8).

111.  The scene from Apocalypse chapter four may be approximated for 1917, when Our Lady of Fatima came to Portugal. Chapter five aligns more with 1941, when the first seal was opened; or when Our Lord told Sr. Lucia that "They did not want to heed My Request" at Rianjo, 1931. The thing is, when the first seal was opened (1941), the fourth Marian dogma was not yet defined (1950). Pius XII was considering it a few years earlier:

On May 1, 1946, Pius XII sent the encyclical letter Deiparae Virginis Mariae to all the bishops of the world, asking two main questions:

    "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith?"
    "Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"

The response from the bishops was 99% in the affirmative.

Nevertheless, this is a 'circular' element which is explored further in the last section. We believe the absence of the four living creatures with the ancients before the throne in chapter eleven signifies that, in the first timeline, there weren't four defined Marian dogmas to be represented there; so how can the four be represented at the time of the opening of the first seal when the fourth was not yet defined ? It might be similar to the way Our Lady was preserved from original sin by the merits of Our Lord before He had merited them; or it might be, at that point, it was inevitable that Pius XII would define the Assumption. We will never know in this life, but it is possible he first thought of it when Sr. Lucia first published the first two parts of the Secret of Fatima on August 31, 1941 (Third Memoir; again in the Fourth Memoir on Dec. 8, 1941). Fatima as a whole might have suggested it to him even in the 1930's. The thing is, we believe the idea of the definition first came to him before the first seal was opened, and since it would be inevitable from that point, the fourth living creature was effectively there already.

 

111A.  For example, She told us that if Her requests were heeded, 'many souls will be saved and there will be peace'. She then went on to say that if Her requests were not heeded, 'Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated'. We notice that, although it is implied, She did not say that 'subsequently many more souls will be lost'. In the context of the book of life thesis, we can see why: It is not necessarily so. Because if the book of life were unsealed, many more souls may be saved. Notice also that in the negative consequences She did not speak of the fate of souls; in this context, implication is not affirmation.