Footnotes - X. The Prophecy Of Daniel Chapter Twelve

 

112.  We have also seen that the 'little book open' of Apocalypse chapter ten can arguably be the third secret of Fatima. That also is not the 'revelation that is locked away' given to Daniel. What does not make sense, in our opinion, is if the sealed book itself contained revelations while the events accompanying the opening of the seals are already described, particularly in chapter six.

In verse four, when Daniel is told to "shut up the words, and seal the book" ("keep this revelation locked away" - Knox), this concerned the first resurrection, which is revealed later by St. John. In verses eight and nine, when Daniel asked "what shall be after these things" ? ("what shall be the end of it all" ? - Knox), this concerned the second timeline period of peace, the 'millennium', and how that ends; and then the 'new heaven and the new earth' of the last two chapters.

112A.  The four living creatures showed St. John the events accompanying the opening of the first four seals, which may be a sign of Our Lady's as yet undefined titles of 'Mediatrix of all Graces' and 'Co-Redemptrix'.

The four Marian dogmas, the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Divine Maternity, and the Assumption all bespoke of Her role in salvation as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, which is how Our Lord came to be on earth, and to be able to open the seals, as He is worthy, being true God and true Man.

Verse six describes "a Lamb standing as it were slain", and "in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients". The Lamb is the basis of salvation for all, in that His Merits extend that far; and is the basis for all the graces for all who are in that scene. We observe the unity of the first three: The Lamb in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures; but then, also, in the midst of the ancients. As the ancients are separated from the first part we wonder if they are not representative of the communion of saints, including those of the Old Law. This would show a continuity between them, especially as, after the Resurrection, He had opened the gates of Heaven at last. As the communion of the saints was still in its infancy during Apostolic times, the ancients might, in the vision, primarily if not exclusively represent the Old Testament figures; but they would represent the communion of saints to come forth during subsequent millennia, until the time came for the seals to be opened.

There can be no way to explain the unity of the first three, separated from the ancients, except as being representative exclusively of the Holy Family, which would place St. Joseph on the throne. He represents the Father; as indeed he did on earth.

The honour paid to him, then, is paid to him first as representative of the Father, similar to how the Pope receives due honour from the Church of which he is the head and the representative of Christ on earth; then honour is his due as head of the Holy Family and spouse of the Mother of God and as the reputed father of Jesus Christ. It appears the Father chose to be represented by St. Joseph in this vision.

 

The thing is, and we are not entirely sure, but in order to remain separate from His Creation God as Father does not appear in the Beatific Vision, or at least in this perspective of the Beatific Vision, except through His Representative.

 

113.  For example, the 'strong angel' Apoc. 5:2 is probably not him.

 

114.  We believe Siri was elected pope in 1958; but as he was forced to resign, the papacy was 'taken out of the way' (see "Siri Thesis: Sede Vacante Or 'Sede Remota' ?"). We do not know exactly how. Can the papacy be thus separated from its electee ? That is the question; and it may have happened. How, we do not know. It might be resolved during the first resurrection (we think there is another possible resolution at the signing of the elect, after the sixth seal; but this is, we believe, a temporary measure. It is Sr. Lucia's Third Secret Martyrdom Vision we are considering in that case). Until then, his papacy is prorogued like the Vatican Council (1869-70), even as that council was illicitly continued - or, rather, replaced - by Vatican '2'; as well seemingly, the papacy also illicitly continued - or, rather, replaced - with Roncalli's, as 'John 23'. For the latter it is believed by some that Siri was allowed to be elected and forced to 'resign' so as to neutralize the papacy, that another cannot be licitly elected and that the pope is kept a prisoner and ineffective. This was probably the intention on the part of the compromised members of the hierarchy, and the devil, except it did not work, as the papacy was 'taken out of the way'. And by 'taken out of the way' it does not mean annulled or cancelled, but, as we have said, prorogued somehow until a later time.

As for how this is possible it might simply have been in the nature of the papal office from the beginning. As an 'undocumented feature'. Except for St. Paul's prognostication and St. John's vision.

 

115.  We think that trying to interrupt the Blessed Virgin's continual intercession at the very moment he had undermined the papacy in Rome is as much of a 'cheat' as trying to trick the entire Church into apostatizing themselves by a technicality, with no choice that no one outside the conclave could have known. Both 'tricks' were part of the same double-undermining manoeuvre; a kind of 'short-circuit', as it were, to damnation. But the devil does not understand that God is just. 

 

So this battle could have happened in 1958. The sequence as given in chapter twelve speaks of the conclave, then the battle of Heaven, then the 'persecution of the Church' with what would become the illicit council and illicit directives from the anti-popes (Apoc. 12:13). The announcement of the council was made in 1959. The devil knows what is in the third secret (after it was written down by Sr. Lucia on Jan. 3, 1944). He might have anticipated causing something to happen in 1960 if the true papacy were not there (or at least eclipsed by the false pope), and if the continual intercession were interrupted.

 

The Double-Technicality: (Of the false papacy and attempting to interrupt Our Lady's continual intercession). After all of the revolutions and weakening of the Faith in the world it was found that the Church still 'technically' functioned. As some have pointed out, the seeds of Vatican '2' have been germinating long before, as a result of the growing modernism all around the Church in the world; but for all that She was still functional. The double-technicality attempt by the devil to defeat the Church must have been based on this reasoning, and as a logical next step after all of the attacks on the Faith which he had been working since the Protestant revolt and then the French Revolution. But in so doing he overstepped, as souls are not to be lost for a technicality, or even two of them.

116.  Earlier we wrote: "Fr. Kramer writes that after the angel's cry, in which there were no words articulated, 'there was a immediate answer'. The seven thunders are designated by the definite article which means that these voices are well-known. We may surmise that St. John knows them. Further on we will speculate on whose voices they might represent". 

St. John was about to write what the seven thunders said, which is why we surmised that he 'knows them' to be Catholic voices, though it is not said where they came from. But 'a voice from Heaven' (we know not whose) told him not to write them. In the end, we conclude that what the seven thunders might have said is essentially the contents of Apocalypse chapters 12-19. That he should write these then would have conflicted with the visions he was later to have. (It is somewhat circular: how could the seven thunders be announcing things St. John has not seen yet in his vision ? But the thing is, if this is true, it only means essentially not to mix the timelines! So what the seven thunders mean is that even as the first timeline is being fulfilled some will be predicting things which belong only to the second).

 

Perhaps the words of these seven thunders also parallel (or are concurrent with) the third secret of Fatima which does not have to repeat the Apocalypse to speak of related things happening at the same time. In fact, it must not, because Fatima does not reference the Apocalypse at all, and thus the book of life also. The only real parallel has been Sr. Lucia's third secret vision and chapter 14 and that, too, is far from obvious. The third secret is, to surmise a bit further, the second timeline with no reference at all to the book of life; or as though the book is still sealed, and will never be unsealed and thus has no effect on the destiny of souls, which is impossible in the second timeline. So the third secret thus really is the worst-case scenario.

So if a true pope would have said that this 'shall not happen' (meaning the third secret which also means the second timeline but without knowing it) that is true; and when false pope Roncalli (John 23) declared, after reading the third secret, that 'this does not concern my pontificate' it is effectively a false pope echoing Apoc. 10:6 which means it is both true and false: It does concern his 'pontificate' (inasmuch as it can be called one) and also it will not happen, that the second timeline would come to pass without the unsealing of the book of life (implied but not said in the third secret, as Our Lady carefully avoided any mention of Apocalypse and thus the book of life). This is an impossibility.

 

As it is a sort of double-negative in reverse we should say it again: When Roncalli said that the third secret 'does not concern his pontificate', it is true that the third secret being fulfilled without reference to the book of life as though it does not exist is a scenario which cannot happen and so yes, it 'did not concern his pontificate' (or any pontificate for that matter). And a true pope would have declared, 'that time shall be no longer'.

It also means that the third secret was never meant to be revealed. That implies the first timeline was never meant to come to pass; but there is nothing actually stated by Heaven that either one cannot be fulfilled. So everything They said is true. This is important, because we expect the antichrist to accuse Them of lying, or the Church, or the witnesses to the Church, or any combination; and to say that Our Lady of Fatima is a false apparition, although we do not know yet what form these accusations will take: "And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven" (Apoc. 13:6). He will probably say he will 'correct' the Church, which has 'defected'. But we digress.

 

It is further complicated by the angel's words when, after the book was devoured, that St. John was to prophesy again 'to many nations, and peoples, and tongues, and kings'. Logically, this should include everything after those very words.

 

But those very words (after chapter 11) are also devoured by St. John, when he has eaten the 'little book open'. Chapter 11 is the 'new prophecy' which is the subject St. John was to 'prophesy again', and is the end-point of what 2,000 years of Catholic prophecy was leading to (as the first timeline), as we have seen.

That has been the essential problem of this problem: It is, in a way, circular.

But this is corrected by Apocalypse chapter 12: Because upon its fulfillment, the events of chapter 10 are fulfilled as not being fulfilled; if it were otherwise, the rest of the Apocalypse is fulfilled (or at least accounted for) with the devouring of the 'little book open'. One timeline precludes the other; but each also confirms the existence of the other. That is how one can be and not be at the same time (like the dilemma of Shrödinger's cat).

In brief: It is all straightforward until chapter 10: Then, 'that time shall be no longer' (everything that came before). This means that the seals are not going to be unsealed (but if they were not, why are the second and third woes announced in chapter 11 ? They should follow the first four trumpets which follow after the seals' opening. That is the dilemma). But the seals cannot be unsealed without the four living creatures representing the four Marian dogmas; if the fourth (the Assumption - 1950) is not defined because a Divine intervention was necessary to save the Church, this means nothing would explain the four living creatures who showed St. John the seals of the Four Horsemen (thus, they cannot then be opened). But the seals were already being opened (Pearl Harbour - 1941). This means that, from that point onward, the second timeline is very definitely decided. Because when Germany attacked Russia first, it meant that the three days' darkness of the first timeline can no longer happen, which would have been the case if Russia had attacked first (and taken all of Europe unprepared). And as the first seal concerns the United States (about going forth to conquer), it is referenced with Pearl Harbour, not Barbarossa.

There is a nine year period in which the first (1941), then the second (1949) seals were opened before the fourth Marian dogma was defined (1950). The third secret was written down for the first time on Jan, 3, 1944. We think the devil did not know what it was until it appeared on paper; the same for the the first two parts, which were written in 1941, in Sr. Lucia's Memoirs. A certain sequence emerges. We cannot say for sure that there is a direct causal relationship between certain events and others. But it seems certain things were decided during that time frame. See about the first four seals and the four horsemen in "Four Living Creatures And The Seals".

Sequence of events: Germany invades Russia first, on June 22, 1941. First two parts of the secret of Fatima are written in 1941 (third and fourth Memoirs of Sr. Lucia, August 31, 1941 and Dec. 8, 1941). The first seal is opened (Pearl Harbour, Dec. 8, 1941 - the day when war was declared, the day after the event). Then the third secret is written down for the first time (Jan. 3, 1944). The 'Trinity' nuclear test occurred on July 16, 1945. The technology was given by spies to the Soviet Union, which then successfully tested it in 1949, which opens the second seal ('...and a great sword was given to him'). Then the dogma of the Assumption is defined in 1950, confirming the four living creatures. Then the third seal is opened in 1957, when the European Common Market was signed into existence. Third secret is transferred to Rome in 1957; Sr. Lucia's last reliable interview, with warnings, to Fr. Fuentes, also 1957. Then the conclave of 1958; the third secret is not revealed in 1960 (which itself is very revealing!); seven years later, the fourth seal is opened on Dec. 8, 1965 when Vatican '2' became official.

We think the devil adjusts his plans according to how the secrets are revealed (hence why it was necessary for them to be secret). For instance, the first two parts of Fatima already began to be fulfilled when the sign of 1938 was seen (the night 'illumined by an unknown light') and when the 'worse war' began 'during the reign of Pius XI', in which Germany had already begun to move even before the invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. We are assuming that Sr. Lucia never wrote down even the first two parts of the secret until 1941. But Japan had already begun moving even before Germany; in 1937, they attacked China, and "in 1938, the U.S. began to adopt a succession of increasingly-restrictive trade restrictions with Japan". We have always centered the first seal on the United States as the attack on Pearl Harbour fits the per-eight-year sequence of the first four seals; and, in any case, her main foe of the second world war, Japan, had begun her own wars 'during the reign of Pius XI'. It stands to reason that this war would have happened even if the European war did not, as the U.S. embargo and Japan's imperial interests were on a collision course.

Our main question after all this, then, is what effect did the timing of the revelations of the secret of Fatima have on whether Russia attacked Europe first or whether Germany attacked Russia first ? That is where the swing point lies, in preventing the three days' darkness so that the second timeline (and its book of life) can be opened.

 

117.  The second woe may be considered as the army, Gog and Magog, which "came up across the whole breadth of the earth, and beleaguered the encampment of the saints, and the beloved city" (Apoc. 20:8) and was subsequently destroyed (Apoc. 20:9). The third woe, which also is a woe "to the inhabitants of the earth" (Apoc. 8:13) may be the same which is first announced in the first chapter: "Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen" (Apoc. 1:7); which is either the same in chapter twenty: "And I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them" (Apoc. 20:11); or the third woe of Apoc. 11:15 (the first timeline defeat of the antichrist) or the commencement of the final battle of the antichrist (Apoc. 19:11).

In the end, we consider the third woe as not being the end of the world (though that possibility had to be considered), but near to it. It is a 'woe', properly speaking, to the enemies of Christ.

The first woe, then, may signal the end of the period of peace: "And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit" (Apoc. 9:1). After the tribulation of the second timeline, the devil is chained in the bottomless pit (Apoc. 20:1). When he is 'loosed out of his prison' (Apoc. 20:7), then begins the 'Woe, woe, woe' of the eagle of chapter eight, who, we should remember, had then (before the period of peace second timeline) said that the last three angels "are yet to sound the trumpet" (Apoc. 8:13).

 

Fr. Kramer's discussion of the first woe is very interesting and certainly would fit with the idea of the devil being 'loosed again' after the period of peace. The locusts are treated as metaphorical and there is no reason they should not be, especially in that context (they may, however, not be metaphorical). As for events of the Apocalypse which are clearly not metaphorical representations of spiritual ideas the description of the sixth seal event is the prime example, as explained in "Last Three Seals In Our Time".

118.  The problem of how the woes can be in the first timeline when the seals are not opened therein again presents itself. We would have to assume the Assumption is defined during the 'period of peace', and then the seals are opened after the period of peace. But if the book of life were to be opened either way, why is Apocalypse arranged like this ?

Perhaps it is like the third secret of Fatima, which treats the second timeline as though there were no book of life, which is impossible (and again, this means the third secret was not intended to be revealed; but its non-revelation is the revelation). The first timeline, chapter 11, seems to indicate that the seals were indeed opened, which lead into the trumpets and final three woes; this would be the case, if not for 'that time shall be no longer' of the angel  of chapter 10 (meaning everything which came before). Chapter 11 is a stand-alone end-times scenario. It begins after the period of peace (with no seals being opened) and ends shortly before the Second Coming (no millennium). They cancel each other out somehow: If the third secret of Fatima was never meant to be revealed, because it represents an impossible scenario, then so also the first timeline end-times was never meant to be fulfilled, because it represents an impossible scenario.

 

By the way it is structured, it can be argued that neither scenario of Apocalypse is possible without contradicting the other somehow; but that is precisely the case. There can only be one; so the other is precluded, whichever is fulfilled. 

 

But the contradiction cannot be resolved before one of the two timelines is selected. Then the alternative seems to be impossible.

 

But the point is one of them was impossible all along (or not meant to be fulfilled all along). Also this cannot be known until it is very late.

 

An 'error' made deliberately is not a lie if it was intended (it was intended to keep the Revelation secret until it was time). No one was told that it was an error; but that is merely an omission. Many things are omitted which it is not necessary for us to know.

 

The Revelation was all revealed; it is all there (including the omission which is there by inference). Including the integrated 'error' (the 'circular' element mentioned in footnote #116) which itself is a part of it. In that sense, it becomes not an error, but a feature. It is part of the secret which was revealed from the beginning. That is called a paradox.

 

So the 'error' is the crossing (or even the collision) of both timelines in the text, through chapters ten and eleven. It is more of a limitation of presenting both at once in parallel although only one can be 'seen' at a time. This is why it cannot be seen accurately until one or the other timeline is selected. This is because, until then, there is not only one to be seen. This is another paradox.

Another way to illustrate this metaphorically (taken from footnote #5 in "Flipping The Script"): "It is in the order of presentation: Of both timelines' respective events, including those which may happen for both (such as the trumpets of chapters 8-9), they cannot be paralleled simultaneously in text; it does not work that way; nor in St. John's vision. We may liken this to 'hardware limitations' of this life and of the intellect, and the difficulty of relating visions as St. John's to text. In other words, such 'hardware limitations' are in fact a feature".

To continue, let us assume there was no second timeline. What would happen then ?

 

The narrative would halt in Apoc. 8:13 with the last three trumpets already described but to happen at some point in the future. Then chapter 12 would begin with no explanation. 

 

But chapter 12 begins if the Divine intervention did not happen. That means the seals were already being opened, which thus enables chapter 12's fulfillment (again, 'circular').

 

If not, then the narrative 'breaks' with chapter 11, and the sequence ends.

 

2,000 years of Catholic prophecy were leading to the Divine intervention as the 'default' timeline. If that did not change, then the Divine intervention would be required, so that chapter 10 is fulfilled: "That time shall be no longer".

 

If it is not required, then the narrative parallels with the seals' opening and chapters 12 and 13. That is when it really begins; otherwise, it is ending with chapters 10-11 following 2,000 years of Catholic prophecy after Revelation ended with St. John's vision.

 

The second timeline, then, really has two endings: The three 'woes' spoken of by the eagle of Apoc. 8:13, which does not happen yet, but holds until the very end; particularly the third woe. In this way the 'trumpets' part of the narrative does not reach chapter 10. Those woes, the last three trumpets, parallel Apoc. 20:7-11, which is the other ending. In a way, the rest of the second timeline is contained within the sequence of the trumpets' soundings.

 

But there is a third ending; or rather, the Gospel parallel ending, where the seventh trumpet and third woe is finally found. It is a 'woe' to the world but not to the faithful. 

 

 

We think there is only one who can engineer this, because though he has the 'mark' of original sin he never sinned; and he is placed highly enough in the hierarchy of Heaven to make it happen. What we mean is this not-entirely-forthright presentation of the timeline(s). It was not meant to deceive us, but meant for the deceiver to deceive himself trying to deceive everyone else. Thus, it was not meant to deceive even the adversary; but in the adversary's attempt to deceive everyone else he caused the second timeline to be enabled.

It was counted on that the adversary would take a certain course. So two timelines were presented: One which is worse than the other for those who are between them. Heaven was not bound to explain which was which; not to the adversary, and not to us, especially as They did not even make known, to us, that there were actually two of them. That was not necessary to know for salvation, although it was revealed anyway.

That is the closest we can arrive at this time to a cogent explanation of how it all happened.

 

But it is important to remember that along the first timeline, Heaven did everything They could to prevent the Divine intervention to become actually necessary, at least until the devil defeated himself in attempting to defeat the Church. We know of no other way to describe it. It is not a case of the members of the Church doing more than is necessary the whole time. No, all of their efforts were required to get to this point, and for the devil to 'overreach'.

 

If it became necessary for the Divine intervention to happen, it is because something even worse would happen if it did not (and there would be no book of life). At the same time, it was preferred that the second timeline be the one fulfilled, as the book of life is for the good of souls.

 

119.  The little book, open, cannot have represented the Fatima secrets since Fatima would not actually be prophesied until 1917. However, being part of the second timeline, Fatima would nonetheless be annulled before it even came to be, in the instance of an earlier necessary Divine intervention. Thus the 'little book open' represents everything after chapter 11, since they are a part of the same vision. It is however a paradoxical loop either way.

To put it in brief: How can a prophecy be annulled before it had been prophesied ? The only way is to announce that there is one, but not to give details until its time had come, or else it is annulled (then the details cannot be given). That is one reason for the secrets. 

The thing is, in Apocalypse, the timeline details are given, so they cannot be represented as annulled before they are given; that is why it is represented by the 'little book open'.

Does this mean, then, that the 'seven thunders' are the words of Fatima ? Not necessarily. We have seen that those thunders might speak of events of the second timeline (chapters 12-19) being prophesied even as the first timeline is being fulfilled during the 'period of peace'. They might also (or otherwise) even be speaking of the seals which were seen earlier in the vision; and thus those details might be repeated in the text if they were part of the seven thunders (it might be prophesied, for instance, that the seals will be opened after the 'period of peace'; this would certainly be in conflict with the timelines, and so the angel appears to forestall them in Apoc. 10:3; or, rather, the voices of the seven thunders appear to contradict the angel, who was showing, by his stance, just what was not going to happen: The second timeline and its two beasts. (We have said this before but it bears repeating every time there is a variation in how this question comes about.)

The words of the angel, 'That time shall be no longer', would certainly echo the words of Pius XII or his successor had the third secret been revealed. Without special revelation, it is unlikely he would speak further about it, and especially about the Apocalypse. He might have to define something in this regard - or will pointedly avoid doing so. But we do not know, and that speculation cannot go further.

In the end, if the angel's words do echo the pope's (or vice-versa, or both simultaneously) in the other timeline, then that accounts for the third secret of Fatima as it would then be revealed; then the 'little book open' being held by the angel at the same time is the Apocalypse (which shall also 'be no longer') in parallel with Fatima; and the 'seven thunders' might be members of the Church speaking of the opening of the seals after the 'period of peace' but this can no longer happen; finally, it could be that those who contradict the angel at that time would become, in time, the new heretics who would fall to antichrist when he did arrive in the first timeline, after the period of peace. And that speculation can go no further.

 

119A.  It is only said that the beast and the false prophet were 'cast alive into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone' (Apoc. 19:20) and the rest were slain. At the end, the devil "was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone" (Apoc. 20:9). The 'brimstone' is omitted in Apoc. 20:14-15 but it is understood that the 'pool of fire' referenced there is the same, which is the second death. So of the first resurrection, those who 'awake' unto life everlasting are remaining on the earth until the end, as is told in Apocalypse chapter 20, but of those who awake 'unto reproach' it is not said for certain whither they go then, but that they will 'see it always' (Dan. 12:2).

Actually Apoc. 20:6 might have told us already: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power, etc".

119B.  In discussing the appearance of the apparition of chapter one and the angel of chapter ten in St. John's Apocalypse (Section VII, Apoc. 10:1), we concluded that the appearance of the former had to do with the resurrected state of St. John's apparition; as for Daniel's, who was described, in part, as "...his arms, and all downward even to the feet, like in appearance to glittering brass, etc" (Dan. 10:6) this is neither 'as a flame of fire' (the angel), nor 'like unto fine brass, as in a burning furnace'. Our Lord can appear as though in corporeal form in a glorified state if He so chooses, which would explain Daniel's apparition. Daniel referred to his apparition as 'the likeness of a son of man', but as Our Lord had not been born yet, Daniel would not recognize Him as St. John might; yet St. John did not refer to his apparition as Our Lord but also as 'one like to the Son of man'. Unless St. Joseph time-travelled, then Daniel's was Our Lord and St. John's was St. Joseph.

120.  Daniel prefigures St. John. It is as if they play similar roles. That is one of the reasons why we think he is the ancient (or elder) who spoke to St. John in Apoc. 5:5.

 

121.  The details given in the Gospels do not indicate a specific time period. It only indicates that, from the end of the period of peace (when there begin 'wars and the rumour thereof' as though it is a new thing) until the Parousia the same generation will not have passed. It may be many years; but within that timeframe, in the first timeline, is contained the 'two and forty months' of the antichrist's reign. The elements of these two things, the Gospel accounts of the end and the reign of the antichrist are thus interlaced, in the first timeline scenario, without contradicting each other. In this way the same details are given of a different end, this time without the antichrist, without conflict with either timeline.

 

121A.  The official story, as it were, was that the world would be ending shortly thereafter. To speak of this second timeline, which concerns the book of life directly, would possibly give something away. Nevertheless, the book was spoken of to Daniel, and the two 'witnesses' on either bank of the river also attest to it. So Daniel was not told that there would be, or would not be, a time after 'the scattering of the band of the holy people'; he was told only that he could not be told about it.

122.  The polarization of recent years is not necessarily a firm indicator of how they may react to the antichrist when he arrives (as he will appear to be a 'Godsend' to the world). Some on the 'left' may, for reasons unknown but perhaps for some truth they yet retain, realize who he is and wake up (instead of being 'woke'); some on the 'right' for reasons unknown but perhaps for sins they prefer to retain, may let themselves be seduced. There is no use for predicting who will go which way, because then it is decision time. Although for many, yes, they have already chosen their way in the past. There is no formula for this.

For many it depends on whether they will listen to the sedevacantists or not. At bottom is a simple logical decision: Is the one in Rome true or not, and therefore does one believe him or not ?

123.  Afterwards, it becomes of historical note, as were the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the coming of the Messiah. As for Apoc. 18:4, it ought to be definitely fulfilled by chapter 14. It may be someone remains to come to the truth right up until the end.

124.  Or it might be 2,601 days inclusive (including Oct. 26, 1958 and Dec. 8, 1965 as a whole). However, we are not revising this as it did not begin with a whole day on Oct. 26, 1958 or end on a whole day on Dec. 8, 1965. We have just found out that Montini (Paul 6) "gave his main closing speech and presided over the final ceremonies of the Second Vatican Council in the morning of December 8, 1965, in Rome". And as we know Siri was elected during the evening of Oct. 26, 1958, the hours added together is probably around thirty but not exceeding thirty-six (which would be a day and a half, which would round up to two). So the time is 2600 days x 24 hours plus a remainder of not exceeding 12 hours, or half a day, which is acceptable to discount as not counting for another day. In other words, exactly 2,600 days, or 45 days exceeding precisely seven years - not including leap years (i.e. 365 x 7).

Including leap years (365 days x 7 + 2 [1960, 1964]) would result in the days adding up to 2,602. However, not if one begins from Roncalli's appearance at about 6:00 P.M. Rome (again, thirty to thirty-six hours for partial days), on Oct. 28, 1958). So, either way it is exactly seven years plus 45 days. There must be something in it (those 45 days mentioned by Daniel); we just do not know what it is.