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

Two Timelines Of Apocalypse - Part Three (Section IX)  

 

(Footnotes/Extended Details also on separate page)

 

 

XI.  The Arrangement Of Apocalypse And Final Notes/Two Timelines Signs

Sr. Lucia/Fr. Fuentes Interview Revisited (1957)

Holy Shroud of Turin     

Parable Of The Labourers

Angel Of Chapter Ten Revisited

General And The Particular Judgements

Default Timeline And Catholic Prophecy

Formation Of Souls

There Has To Be A Cause For Hope

Where Are The Four Living Creatures ?

 

In the introduction to chapter twenty-one Fr. Kramer explains how Apocalypse is arranged as he sees it (quoted in extenso): "The last two chapters of the Revelations supplement and explain what was briefly stated or only suggested in chapters XIX. and XX. Chapter twenty narrates the succession of events from the condemnation of Antichrist till the end of the world. Chapters XXI. and XII. take up the theme indicated in XX. 6, the blessedness of the times that shall follow the destruction of all agencies of evil on earth. The Apocalyptist always takes up in a later chapter and develops fully a theme only mentioned in its proper chronological setting and order. These last two chapters, furthermore, in describing the triumphs of the Eucharistic Lamb and their happy results for the world give the final interpretation to many prophecies of the Old Testament" (italics ours). [97]

We confess to not quite have noticed this pattern, except up to a point: For instance, Apocalypse chapter fourteen concerns the martyrdom of the elect. This was touched upon briefly, or at least hinted, in chapter thirteen: "And it was given unto {the beast} to make war with the saints, and to overcome them" (Apoc. 13:7). We do not see this pattern throughout; at least, it is not self-evident. The letters of chapters two and three do not fall through to chapter four, but the Apocalyptic narrative properly begins in chapter four. More importantly for our purposes is to observe that chapter eleven does not fall through to chapter twelve in any narrative sequence; nor is there a thematic connection between them; nor, indeed, between chapter twelve and any prior chapter (instead it falls through to chapter thirteen as the end point of what began then. The peculiar arrangement and why it is so will be examined later). Instead, there is a clear break in the whole narrative with chapters ten and eleven.

What we have noticed instead is a consistent pattern of two throughout the Apocalypse; the whole thing is divided into pairings, except for chapter one:

Chapter 1: The apparition to St. John. This is a stand-alone chapter.

Chapters 2-3: Both are the seven letters to the churches.

Chapters 4-5: Both are before the throne in heaven - introduces the four living creatures and the book of life. The throne is the pairing.

Chapters 6-7: The seals' openings lead to the signing of the elect as a consequence. That is the pairing, as of cause and effect.

Chapters 8-9: This pairing is of the trumpets.

Chapters 10-11: This pairing is of the first timeline alternative, if the second is not reached.

Chapters 12-13: The establishment of the antipapacy in 1958 leads to the beast with seven 'heads', as a consequence.

 

Afterwards the pairings double upon themselves for a short while:

 

Chapters 14-15: This pairing is of the elect and martyrs, from the earth to before the throne. The link is the new canticle: Apoc. 14:2-3 and 15:2-3.

Chapters 15-16: The vials are introduced, and poured out in the sixteenth.

 

There is no such 16-17 link. However, it continues afterwards:

Chapters 17-18: 'Babylon' pairing. The rise of  'Babylon' is introduced and afterwards its destruction.

Chapters 19-20: Final battles pairing. The great battle and defeat of the beast, followed by the last battle and final defeat of the devil.

Chapters 21-22: New earth and New Jerusalem pairing. After the consummation.

If this is true, then there is a subtle pattern in this arrangement to be noticed: The only break in the pattern is the beginning, with chapter one as a stand-alone, and chapters fourteen through sixteen in which the fifteenth pairs with the chapter before and the one after; this reads as 'one' and 'three' which for us represents 'thirteen' or the number of the day in which Our Lady chose to appear each time at Fatima. And if we are not reading too much into it, She was also indicating Apocalypse chapter thirteen and perhaps the sixth seal by the number of apparitions (six) and the particular day on which She chose to appear (the thirteenth of each subsequent month). And then there is the pairings themselves. All of that simply points to the second timeline.

 

It may also indicate the breadth of the Third Secret, which ends, it would seem, with the martyrdom vision of Sr. Lucia which we believe to be genuine as it fits chapter fourteen with a notable exactitude (see "Third Secret Martyrdom Vision...").

  

 

Sr. Lucia/Fr. Fuentes Interview Revisited (1957)

 

All indications are that Sr. Lucia was not aware of of all of this about the two timelines and the book of life. And this is not to be wondered at, since Our Lady Herself was careful not to speak about it. That is really the big secret behind the Secret of Fatima. Some may see it as impossible, as it seems misleading, both to the seer and to us. But the point was not to mislead all of us. It was to cause the devil to deceive himself. And this happened; no wonder he is so angry.

But everything Our Lady said was true (and we have developed this elsewhere); She just did not reference the book of life; She was not supposed to. She indicated what will happen if Her requests were heeded, or not. And thus, Pius XII did not actually fail when he did not consecrate Russia together with the bishops of the world. It is, instead, a demonstration of Papal Infallibility.

And no matter what else has been happening since then, we see that it is actually better this way, in the second timeline, for it is the one way the book of life is unsealed. However, in the meantime there is a real danger for souls (that has not changed) so let us re-examine Sr. Lucia's warnings to Fr. Fuentes from this perspective:

The operation of error. Sr. Lucia said. "Father, the most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the Message. But believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent". 

 

The good in this case would be faithful Catholics who, if they were paying attention, would give heed to 1960 which was then approaching. If more of them paid attention, then they might have realized what it meant when Roncalli refused to reveal it. But we do not think that is really the point; the antipapacy had to be established. The point is more along the lines of 'reading the signs of the times' which means the end-times, where everything is decided.

The bad did not see 'the punishment of God actually falling upon them' because they did not love the truth and had no faith. The 'punishment from Heaven' (in hindsight), then, is twofold: First, that the Faith itself would be taken away but not obviously (1958-present) so that even if one were to convert, it would not avail them, as they would be part of the Vatican '2' church; secondly, it is the establishment of the 'operation of error' spoken of by St. Paul. So this statement is like an expanded form of 2 Thess. 2:7-11, in which the papacy is 'taken out of the way', leading to the establishment of the antipapacy, which leads to the antichrist, who comes 'in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish' because they did not love the truth. But this is getting ahead of ourselves, as the seals are not yet actually unsealed at this point, and the antichrist forerunners are not yet the antichrist himself. In fact, there is a 'circular' element: St. Paul's description contains both the beginning of this time where the antipapacy is established and the end to which it leads. And Sr. Lucia's words are the same way. We will return to this point shortly:

So the 'punishment from Heaven' which begins at this point is both the taking away of the Papacy, which means the loss of faith, and the establishment of the 'operation of error' which is not only the taking away of the Papacy. The dragon of chapter twelve had ten horns, which means world-wide influence - the spread of Russia''s errors throughout the world. The 'operation of error' is 'error made official'; it is accepted as fact, it is policy, and it forms the 'narrative' (as it is called). When the antipapacy was established, the Vatican became 'of the ten horns' as well and together they make the 'operation of error'. Neither the media alone nor the antichurch alone would be enough to constitute such an operation, as they would contradict each other, unless there were an essential common foundation for both - represented by the ten horns of the dragon.

From beginning to end. The 'circular' elements consists of the breadth of the consequences of the punishment from Heaven. It began with the antipapacy (although really the whole process of its establishment should include Vatican '2': 1958-1965) but the book of life is still sealed at that time (third seal opened in 1957; fourth, in 1965). This is where it is difficult. Sr. Lucia was not speaking from the book of life perspective, where it begins, but where it ends must be seen from the book of life perspective.

St. Paul helps us here: The antichrist comes in the end (but beginning with its forerunners in 1958) 'in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish' (to confirm them in iniquity, which they chose) 'because they receive not the love of the truth, that they may be saved' (Knox calls it 'that fellowship in the truth', as in becoming Catholic); which here applies to both ends: in the beginning, for not believing in the Church (nor Our Lady's message of Fatima), and in the end, for not believing the truth in general (even the most basic truths) which errors will be confirmed by the antichrist, and those who 'refuse fellowship in the truth' in this instance is to be together with the antichrist, and consenting to be part of his empire, rather than believing the essential truth that he is not the pope, nor was his predecessors, and he is not of Christ, or of Heaven.

In the meantime the seals will have been opened prior to the arrival of the 'man of sin' proper. What we do not know is, during the whole time in between, what effect the operation of error had with the chances of many to remain in the book of life when it is unsealed. Here we are not concerned with particular sins, or how many, or how serious, as that is to be decided on the great day of Judgement. We believe that no one's names, no matter what they have done beforehand, is affected until the great day of Judgement. What is indicated by Apoc. 13:8 and 17:8 applies to the generation which is alive at the time when the 'man of sin' arrives. This is why those who overcame him are part of the first resurrection (Apoc. 20:4-5) and others rose again but 'unto reproach, to see it always' (Dan. 12:2).

We think that Our Lady and Her seer Sr. Lucia spoke not from the book of life perspective because that essential truth was still a secret, like the Third Secret of Fatima (except the Third Secret of Fatima must not speak of the book of life either). And Sr. Lucia was inspired to speak her words because they applied to the world while the book of life is sealed, and thus could not avail anyone then, and also applies to the world after it is unsealed, although she did not know that, but it remained true that the 'punishment from Heaven', the taking away of the papacy and the loss of faith makes possible the coming of the 'man of sin' whom people might accept if they do not accept what the Faith is as opposed to what the 'man of sins' claims it to be. To make that distinction is crucial, and at its heart is the love of the truth, or not; and this cannot be emphasized enough. [98]

We do not think it absolutely necessary to continue with the rest of interview but a few more notes will suffice:

Sr. Lucia said, "Father, how much time is there before 1960 arrives? It will be very sad for everyone, not one person will rejoice at all if beforehand the world does not pray and do penance. I am not able to give any other details, because it is still a Secret. According to the will of the Most Holy Virgin, only the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima are permitted to know the Secret, but they have chosen to not know it so that they would not be influenced. This is the third part of the Message of Our Lady, which will remain secret until 1960".

This is, of course, without reference to the book of life. If it were not going to be unsealed, nothing afterwards could change this outlook. Pius XII and the Bishop of Fatima chose not to read the third secret, which seems surprising; but if he had lived to see 1960, Pius XII would have to reveal it; but in this case, without the conversion of Russia (not being consecrated together with the bishops, including the bishop of Fatima, according to the exact request of the Blessed Virgin) he could not, with the words of the angel, say "that time shall be no longer" (Apoc. 10:6). So it was inevitable that he should not live to 1960. Some say his death was brought about prematurely by those in the Vatican who were preparing their coup; and this is because the consecration had not been done as requested. It could not have come about any other way, but it is as though each end completed the other in the middle, in a manner of speaking. It is like one of those 'circular' things which are, as it were, completed; the others we have mentioned are still pending, and that is why they resemble circular logic. If there is a better way of describing this we have not found it. [*98A]

 

Further in the interview we see Sr. Lucia testify that the devil was attempting to 'overcome souls consecrated to God' so that the souls of the faithful are abandoned by their leaders, 'thereby the more easily will he seize them'. This is the schism of 1958 in particular which was the occasion for the papacy being taken away. We see afterwards that the devil did not succeed in trapping the woman of Apocalypse chapter twelve (the Church). But that had not happened yet, as well as the 'decisive battle' spoken of by Sr. Lucia. She does not speak as though she knew the outcome, except for the danger to souls. The danger to souls was real, even with the book of life (which she did not appear to know about in connection to the Secret) but it is this danger which makes possible the book of life to be unsealed. It is a paradox. The thing is, the other danger to souls would be that the book of life not be unsealed. How does one describe this paradox ? It seems absurd even to write it down. We do not know if Sr. Lucia said everything she was thinking in this interview but she must have sensed something like it on some level. We ought to remember that she transmitted everything faithfully as the Blessed Virgin asked, and that also there were things even Our Lady of Fatima did not say; but that is the meaning of the secret which was not revealed, is it not ?

After indicating the danger to souls if they remain obstinate in sin, and that each individual is essentially on his own, without leadership, she continues with the 'last times of the world':

 

The last times: "Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world, but She made me understand this for three reasons:"

She did not have to tell Sr. Lucia that literally 'these are the last times of the world' and, in a similar fashion, She did not have to say 'look at Revelations if the third secret is not revealed' to find the truth. Actually these are linked: The 'last times of the world', at this point, had not yet begun with the second timeline, in which there is a millennium which is not present in the first; it is still the 'last times' but the end is not as close as it would have been otherwise. Also, to indicate the book of Revelation in any way, as part of the third secret, might have given it away; or, alternatively, it would not be understood, as we believe the third secret cannot have any reference to the book of life either. We have found that Sr. Lucia's third secret vision corresponds with Apocalypse chapter fourteen, but only in context with everything else. On the face of it, it looks like a vision of a martyrdom but without knowing why or how they had got there.

The decisive battle: "First...She told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Also, from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility".

 

Here we are going to emphasize the last part, as it seems to indicate what we have said regarding St. Paul's words: One does not have to be Catholic, in these times (particularly after the papacy is 'taken out of the way') to be for God and against the devil. What is important is to have a baseline, essential love of the truth, being truthful, and being for what is true, even if one is not sure what that is. In this way people may become aware of the contradiction between the antichrist and the papacy. The principle of non-contradiction is a part of it; hierarchy as opposed to 'equality/equalism' as the governing principle of the universe, and more. It is well and good to say, as the communists do, 'I am for world peace'; anybody can be for world peace. But if on the quest for that world peace one is obliged to lie to everyone to achieve it, then it is not true that it is peace; it is dominion, and one which is subject to a lie. If everyone in the world is subject to one person (who would then mediate all conflicts), that person is 'above' everyone else; but this is true only of Christ. Spiritually, everyone in the world is subject to the Pope; but it is that office, established by Christ, which is his position, not the man himself, except that he be worthy of the office, by not being a heretic.

Last two remedies: "The second reason is because She said to my cousins as well as to myself, that God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others".

 

We think these are the 'two wings of a great eagle' (Apoc. 12:14) and that it is the same as the 'eagle flying', the fourth living creature (Apoc. 4:7) which is a metaphor for the dogma of the Assumption, defined seven years before Sr. Lucia made this statement. When once one identifies the four living creatures, it is obvious that the 'eagle flying' is the Blessed Virgin Mary. If not Her then whom ? If not now then when ?

Last means: "The third reason is because in the plans of Divine Providence, God always, before He is about to chastise the world, exhausts all other remedies. Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever, then as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us with ‘certain fear’ the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother. It is with ‘certain fear’ because if you despise and repulse this ultimate means, we will not have any more forgiveness from Heaven, because we will have committed a sin which the Gospel calls the sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin consists of openly rejecting, with full knowledge and consent, the salvation which He offers. Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His Most Holy Mother, etc".

This is truer now even than when Sr. Lucia said it. When the Church (the woman of Apocalypse chapter twelve) retreated into the wilderness, then into the desert (from Rome then from the dioceses), the only sure connection left was through the Holy Rosary. The book of life was still sealed and had no effect on the situation. Afterwards, when it is unsealed and the antichrist has arrived, will people believe him or go to Her ? The recent dismissal of the titles of Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix by the Vatican seems to prefigure the coming choice. It may become more convoluted as the 'false prophecy which is fulfilled' (concerning the sixth seal) comes into play: The false prophecy in question, Garabandal, will seem to offer a way to prevent what it calls 'the Punishment' (of the world), but the truth is what is coming cannot be prevented. Then it will seem as if Her intercession has failed, or else it has failed because of those who, devoted to Our Lady of Fatima, has rejected the false church and the antipopes (and this will give them fault in the eyes of the world). It will likely be both simultaneously. Whether or not the 'man of sin' has arrived at that point, before 'the Punishment' or afterwards, is not known; there is simply no way of pinpointing his arrival beforehand. It probably does not matter then.

 

Holy Shroud of Turin. 

 

It has been noted that the image on found the Shroud of Turin is a perfect photographic negative. This is not possible to fabricate centuries before photography was invented, if one considers it to be a hoax. Since it is the genuine article, with a significance which could not have been known until less than two centuries ago, the question arises: What is the meaning of the photographic negative of the image ?

Given that photography would not be invented until close to Apocalyptic times, and after the time when the great monarch could no longer intervene (in the first half of the 19th century; 1826 or 1827), the meaning of the photographic negative could not begin to be discerned until at least then. This would also suggest that the meaning was not meant to be discovered until very late. 'Very late', as we have seen, is after the possibility of the great monarch in the first timeline and not so very long before the opening of the second timeline with Fatima.

 

It could be that this negative photographic image is a suggestion of the action of the book of life itself. So long as it is sealed, the way to salvation through the baptism and the Church is strictly additive; but with the book of life, it is strictly subtractive.

 

It is a flip-side reversal of the normal process, but without effect to those who have had the baptism. A positive by either the baptism or the book is life is positive either way; it is not necessary to have both the baptism and the book of life but that does not take away from either one; but it is impossible to have the baptism but not the book of life unless the soul is found on the Day of Judgement to have descended into such a state that the name is no longer found there (or during the time of antichrist when Apoc. 13:8 applies); to have the baptism but not the book of life under normal conditions (when Apoc. 13:8 does not apply) is not possible. [98B]

As 'outside the Church there is no salvation', so long as the book of life is under seal, so also 'inside the book of life there is no damnation'. That, we believe, is what the 'negative' photographic image of Our Lord and Saviour on the Holy Shroud of Turin signifies.

 

The above avowal might be seen as a contradiction of 'outside the Church there is no salvation', so it is necessary to go over it again. Everything Christ said and did and everything the popes guarded and defined afterwards had no reference to the book of life. And yet the book of life came before everything, even original sin, written "from the foundation of the world" (Apoc. 17:8). The Church is the way to salvation, but if one is in the book of life in the end one cannot be condemned. By salvation in this context we mean 'going to Heaven'; by non-condemnation, also in this context, we mean 'not going to the second death'. The last two chapters of Apocalypse hold the answer to this, as the 'new earth' is a kind of extension of Heaven though not Heaven itself. The New Jerusalem is established there as a kind of connection between the two. [*98C]

 

In addition to the flip-side reversal of the normal process (similar to how all numbers are the same whether on the positive or negative side of zero, except that they are positive or negative), it can be said that as recognizing the Christ as the Saviour is the sure way to salvation (leading to the baptism and membership in the Church), so also is recognizing the antichrist the sure way to damnation (leading to the removal from the book of life). In the first case, it means salvation outside of the book of life, which, still sealed, has no role at all (and when it is unsealed, there is no negation of the baptism); [98D] in the second, it means the preservation from the second death. Retaining the name in the book is a preservation whereas the baptismal register outside of the book is of salvation. It is very important not to confuse the book of life with the Church, for they are different entities. It would be a monumental error.

 

 

Parable Of The Labourers.

 

This parable is given as an 'image of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 20:1-16).

 

In the parable of the labourers, the rich man went to hire labourers to work in his vineyard. The first group agreed to work for the day for a silver piece; three hours later, the employer went and hired a second group; three hours later yet a third group; and at the last hour he hired the last ones whom did not yet have work for the day.

At the end of the day he instructed his foreman to pay the labourers beginning with the last group and going back to the first group: The last group received their silver piece, but every other group, who had worked longer, received the same.

Those who had worked longer objected, saying that these last ones, who did the least work as they had worked for a little time compared to the rest, had received the same wages.

But the employer responded to the effect that 'nothing had been taken from them that they had not already agreed upon'. If the first group agreed to work for the day for a certain wage, then that is what they will receive, regardless of what happens afterwards. He then explained that he is free to use his money as he wills; if he is generous to the last ones, it does not at all take away from the first ones, who had agreed to the contract as it was.

"So it is that they shall be first who were last, and they shall be last who were first. Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 20:16~Knox).

The question is how might this be interpreted in light of the book of life ?

 

The ones who were chosen kept the Faith until a point when it was possible for the seals to be opened. Their task was more difficult, but no less rewarding.

 

Angel Of Chapter Ten Revisited.

 

10:1  And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and a rainbow was on his head, and his face was as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire.

 

10:2  And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot upon the earth.

At the beginning of this section, it was stated "There is in this action a very great deliberateness. It means that this action has some relation" to the beasts of chapter thirteen who emerge from the sea and the earth.

 

Soon, St. John is told to take and eat the 'little book open', which represents the second timeline that is symbolically 'blocked' by the angel 's stance, as he is standing in the very place where those two beasts were supposed to emerge. 

 

That his feet are 'as pillars of fire' as he stands there begs the question: Is it a good thing or not, that he is blocking the arrival of those two beasts ? What does the fire mean except, to take a long surmise, that where he is standing is the difference between hell or not (for how many we will leave aside for the moment) given what emerges from the sea, and from the earth ?

 

In light of what we have seen thus far, it is actually a better thing that the second timeline, of the two beasts of chapter thirteen, be fulfilled; there is no guarantee that in the first timeline the book of life is opened. In fact there is a definite proof against this, to which we shall arrive shortly.

 

The angel's stance can be seen in two ways: By the prevention of the second timeline many souls will be saved or many souls will be lost. From the perspective of the first timeline, it is the former; from the perspective of the second timeline (assuming it is the only one in which the book of life is unsealed) it is the latter. The thing is, the scene is a metaphor for this, but is non-directional: It does not say one way or another whether this or that is preferred. This is by design.

 

It is important to note that both perspectives are valid without Heaven telling a lie. 

 

The scene simply states that this makes a difference, one way or the other. That is strictly true.

 

The key is that the book of life existed and was sealed since the foundation of the world but had no effect, none whatever, on the history of salvation. What the occasion was that made it possible was the devil's attempt to prevail the gates of hell against the Church by a technicality which was a complete lie, so that there was no choice but to fall into it.

 

So how the book of life was hidden - without lying - is not only a counter to the devil 's manoeuvre, it is a counter-response. Our Lord was not exaggerating when he said 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' against the Church. That guarantee was the papacy - the Rock - and it was awaiting the book of life (especially when there is no choice but to open it). The thing is, this counter-response was already in place before original sin even happened. [99]

 

Default Timeline And Catholic Prophecy.

 

From what we have seen, the second timeline is the 'default' timeline of Apocalypse. It is structured entirely along the lines of the fulfillment of the second.  The contradiction to this comes in chapters ten and eleven, which outlines what is to happen if the timeline of Catholic prophecy (which is the actual default since the death of the last apostle), is the one which is fulfilled instead.

In other words, the first timeline is the default 'mode' of the end-times which seemingly was destined to happen from the beginning, or at least from the Resurrection (but the prophecy of Daniel may default to the second, as we will see). Two thousand years of Catholic prophecy - the whole thing - refers to this 'default' first timeline.

 

In other words, the apparent default is not actually the default, but the other one is. It is as if the second timeline was intended from the start (with the writing of Apocalypse, the last book of the Bible) but the first became the apparent timeline, at least from the end of the apostolic era.

 

What is impossible to say at this point is when it was decided to construct the timelines in this way. If there were no Apocalypse, reading Daniel and the eschatological discourse would signify one end and one way to get there. The book of life does not appear in the discourse, but it does in Daniel chapter twelve. It is significant that Apocalypse was written right at the end of the apostolic era and is the last book of Sacred Scripture but that does not mean it was a 'last minute' modification to the whole plan. It only looks that way; or perhaps it is. [99A]

At Fatima, the timeline switched from the first 'track' to the second. But this is what was intended all along; and although this second timeline has concurrent evils which certainly must be far greater than in the first, in the end, the unsealing of the book of life outweighs every other consideration. Otherwise the prevention of those evils will be realized to be bitter-sweet indeed; but bittermost in the end: "And I took the book from the hand of the angel, and ate it up: and it was in my mouth, sweet as honey: and when I had eaten it, my belly was bitter" (Apoc. 10:10).

The second timeline is still part of Catholic tradition, as its presence is confirmed by two thousand years of Catholic prophecy which accounts for Apocalypse chapters ten and eleven. Otherwise, they would be inexplicable in the end. Nothing can be added nor taken away (Apoc. 22:18-19).

 

It may be said that the 'cancellation' of the first timeline is prefigured by the great monarch's failure to appear (as well as the great crisis which required Divine intervention's failing to come about). Then, all two thousand years of Catholic prophecy prefigures the second timeline as it is related to Apocalypse chapters ten and eleven.

There was a small exchange online which explains this a little:

Someone wrote: "Scripture spoke of a great apostasy. That is more relevant to Catholics than private revelation. Scripture trumps private revelation".

Our response: "It's as though he believes that the apostasy is believing that the apostasy has come about in fulfillment of Fatima prophecy as though this is in opposition to Scriptural prophecy rather than in harmony with it". (In other words, he speaks as though there were a conflict between Fatima and Scripture, so that believing Fatima is an act of apostasy from Sacred Scripture. But we have seen there is no conflict between them).

Someone else responded that he does not believe the first person views it that way, "but I cannot speak for him. It seems to me that most Catholics view Fatima above Scripture, and if one reads St John through the interpretation of the Church Doctors and Fathers, one can see clearly that Fatima is farcical at best".

Our response: "The Apocalypse wasn't for their time. It is for ours. It's not 'unpacked', so to speak, before its time. Otherwise, what can it add for our edification which isn't already in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21? There's a reason why it is so impenetrable. Not before its time".

Indeed it can hardly be possible to interpret it according to the second timeline, which is what it is concerned with, long before it existed. 

 

 

The first timeline was not absolute, but conditional. Its conditions were not stated, but it can be seen that it would have ended in an intervention from Heaven to defeat the devil before he can defeat the Church; but requiring this intervention would itself be a defeat. We know Christ's promise that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' against the Church; but theoretically, what might have happened if the devil was about to defeat the Church (in the first timeline) and there was no intervention ? We do not know; but we do know the paradox: The moment when the gates of hell might have prevailed (and what is worse, on a trick of a technicality) is when the papacy was 'taken away'. This is just; as the papacy cannot be used either way as an instrument of the gates of hell: Neither to teach error nor by a misinformed adherence to its image.

It is one thing to be born without knowledge, with original sin, and another to also mistakenly recognize a false pope as a true one by a sleight of hand, which is why the papacy was 'taken out of the way'.

 

General And The Particular Judgements. 

 

At each particular judgment, a soul is admitted to Heaven, assigned to purgatory, or condemned to hell, based on that soul's state or disposition at the time. Purgatory is not permanent, as it is a place of purification before being admitted to Heaven. There is also Limbo for all of them who died very young, and were never baptized, and committed no sins but had original sin contracted through the first parents.

All this is without reference to the book of life. What effect might its unsealing have ?

All of these judgements are made upon the soul while separated from the body. Then the book of life is unsealed. At the end, when the soul is re-united to the body during the General Resurrection, what effect will this unsealing have ? [100]

To add one more point to Fr. Kramer's statement that "No one can enter the Holy City, if he be defiled by original sin" (see 'Thesis And Some Objections And Answers' in section VIII): If the book of life 'unmakes' original sin, or nullifies it, similar to the baptism (which is necessary as long as the book of life was unavailable), then this question is already answered.

 

 

Related to the judgements: The dogma "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" or "outside the Church there is no salvation" does not have any reference to the book of life. Nothing needed to be said about it while it is sealed. In a way, this anticipates, and counters, the devil's 1958 manoeuvre in which nothing was said about a false pope substituted for the true one so all would contradict the true one without knowing it.

One might even add to this dogma (if it were possible) 'unless he be found in the book of life' but again, this cannot be said while it is sealed and thus has no application. On its face, this contradicts the dogma, but the book of life came beforehand - so it might be said, instead, that this dogma contradicts the book of life - except that while it is sealed it has no application with which to contradict. It is another one of those 'circular' elements we keep encountering in this investigation. At any rate, the counterpoint, "inside the book of life there is no condemnation", does not contradict the dogma, as one is not saved in the book of life so much as preserved, as one's name is there to begin with.

This is a point which needs going over as many times as necessary. The prime requirement for salvation in the Church is belief in Christ; the prime requirement for remaining in the book of life is not to believe in the antichrist. It cannot be put more plainly than that. The dogma and the book of life do not collide as long as the book of life is sealed and, we suspect, after the papacy is 'taken away' (2 Thess. 2:7).

Formation Of Souls.

Purgatory is necessary to purge the affections for this world in the soul destined for Heaven. If the book of life has the effect just described ('nullifying' original sin), how might the souls, then, be corrected ? We believe the answer is given already: that the effect of the book of life on the General Resurrection will provide this 're-formation' of the body united to the soul without original sin as it has hitherto applied. [*100A]

But would this not mean that there is no sin connected to the soul ? Then would it be an injustice for such a soul, no matter its deeds, to be condemned ? (This is not a serious consideration. Sins must be accounted for, and although many are due to the weakness of original sin, there is no way of knowing how far this goes. It is probably for the best).

Whatever the soul's deeds in life, the body to be re-united to it may or may not reflect the state of the soul in sin or without original sin. This cannot be answered in a definite manner.

 

What also cannot be answered in a definite manner are the exact criterion to remain in the book of life. St. John gives some indications in the last two chapters. [101] But the immediate criterion for being 'blotted out' is in Apoc. 13:8, and Apoc. 17:8.

We believe that there is provision made in the book of life 'written from the foundation of the world' and thus before original sin to provide such healing as necessary [102] provided the soul has not de-merited its place in the book.

 

The whole Catholic Faith prepares souls for Heaven. The book of life at least is a way to spare them from hell, if they have not de-merited their place. Whether they are for Heaven or not on an individual basis is not known until the end; but at the least they may dwell in the 'new earth' (Apoc. 21:1). The New Jerusalem is in this case a bridge between Heaven and this 'new earth (Apoc. 21:2-5). [103]

 

 

There Has To Be A Cause For Hope.

 

In his second letter to Thessalonians, St. Paul speaks of the approaching judgement, by believing the deception, of them 'that are doomed': The coming of the 'man of sin' "with all Satan's influence to aid him...and his wickedness will deceive the souls that are doomed, to punish them for refusing that fellowship in the truth which would have saved them" (verses 9-10 ~ Knox). The Challoner translation phrases it as "in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved". [104]  The Knox translation means, essentially, the 'fellowship in the truth' as being part of the Catholic Church, but that is not exactly the meaning of the older translation. There are two layers to this. This is interpreted with the book of life thesis in mind as the 'default' mode now:

The 'fellowship in the truth' is correct in that all of them who are truly part of the Church in fact and Faith as well as technically by the baptism are not those spoken of as 'doomed'. However, given that the papacy is taken away for decades now and that there is a continuous 'operation of error', the 'fellowship' as meaning 'part of the Church' cannot be applied literally. 

The 'love of the truth' in a more general sense, as per the Challoner translation, is what was meant particularly for our time in the second timeline. Everyone has heard of the term 'conspiracy theory': If one is questioning the 'operation of error' and the narrative of the media, the institutions as they have become today, and all of that which is tending towards what is called 'globalism', then one has an affinity for the truth, moreso than the lie; and though it may be motivated in part by a kind of self-interest (but then, all must be interested in the truth for the common good), it is nonetheless laudable to believe the truth, or have a desire for it, instead of the 'new order' of globalism. If not a fellowship in Christ, at least not yet, then a fellowship against antichrist, which means shortly to be a fellowship in Christ (this is implied in Apoc. 13:8, 17:8). But one has to have a principle for the truth above self-interest and above the belief that this world is all that there is, even if it is as yet vague and undefined for them; but when they see the antichrist denying all Catholic dogma while claiming to be above it all it may suddenly come into sharper focus for them, if they are searching for the truth. To search for something is to have a love for it. [105]

Standing against the antichrist who comes 'with all Satan’s influence to aid him', and with 'no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders' is a small remnant representing the Catholic Church, who specifically are sedevacantist (a number of whom may have just recently became so); many in the world who are listening to them may wonder how it is they themselves are to be saved, with very little priests available who have the valid orders, and very few bishops with valid consecrations in continuity with Pius XII; and doubts about the efficacy of the Holy Rosary, though of course these witnesses will be of no doubt as to its efficacy. [106]

 

Many in the world will have no doubt whom they will follow; these are the 'doomed' who have flaunted the truth for many years and are beginning to reap its reward. Everyone else will be influenced by the sixth seal event but will have cooperated with the truth often enough in the past to have doubts about the apparent 'saviour' now in Rome. [107]

"He that findeth his life, shall lose it:  and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it" (Matt. 10:39). Being the Truth as well as God incarnate, this verse ought to speak to many who have doubts about the antichrist, and ought to realize they have nothing to lose except their life, and that death is not permanent.

The antichrist will threaten their lives in this world and their lives in the next. He will cause to be put to death (or ought to be put to death) all of them who will not pay him homage and honour and worship (Apoc. 13:15), though it is more specifically the 'image' of the beast which will do this, who will encourage it seemingly on an individual basis, [108] at the behest of the false prophet who is the second beast (Apoc. 13:11-15).

We say the antichrist will threaten their lives in the next life as well because after the sixth seal event, it will be of little use to deny that hell exists. He will use that to offer salvation to those who will adore him as their saviour. Only those who love the truth will see that he cannot do this in place of Christ, our true Lord and Saviour.

He will have to acknowledge the Apocalypse because it is no use denying it after the sixth seal event. However he will dare to contradict it, because as St. Paul has written: "This is the rebel who is to lift up his head above every divine name, above all that men hold in reverence, till at last he enthrones himself in God’s temple, and proclaims himself as God" (2 Thess. 2:4~Knox). This will be explored further in "Flipping The Script".

It will also be of no use for the antichrist to deny the book of life, again because of the sixth seal event. He will probably claim to be the one who wrote it, and thus all must follow him to be in it. [109]

Who will gainsay him, if not the elect ?

In this situation, will not people find it more expedient to lose their lives to save it ? If not, they will make excuses to save their lives even in a world undergoing tribulation, thinking they are saving their souls. Even as they think they are saving themselves by following the 'False Father'.

Most people know little or nothing about the Faith and all its details, so keeping it simple will give them a cause for hope, rather than them thinking that they cannot possibly be saved.

 

 

Where Are The Four Living Creatures ?    

 

We have first seen the four living creatures before the throne in Apocalypse chapter four (verse six). They represent in highly metaphorical form the four defined Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Divine Maternity and the Assumption ("The Four Living Creatures And The Seals"). Also appearing with them before the throne in heaven, in chapter four, are "four and twenty seats; and upon the seats, four and twenty ancients sitting, clothed in white garments, and on their heads were crowns of gold" (Apoc. 4:4).

 

As well, the four living creatures are there when the Lamb, "standing as it were slain" (Apoc. 5:6) appeared and accepted the book 'sealed with seven seals' from the hand of "him that sat on the throne" (Apoc. 5:7). Also there at the time of the opening of the seals are the ancients: "And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:" [110]

 

They are there also (the four living creatures and the ancients) during the signing of the elect: "And all the angels stood round about the throne and the ancients and the four living creatures.  And they fell down before the throne upon their faces and adored God," (Apoc. 7:11).

When the new canticle is sung in chapter fourteen, which represents the martyrdom of Sr. Lucia's third secret vision, they are all there again: "And they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne and before the four living creatures and the ancients:  and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand who were purchased from the earth" (Apoc. 14:3).

After the destruction of 'Babylon the great' and its harlot and before the final battle, they are all there before the throne, giving glory to God: "And the four and twenty ancients and the four living creatures fell down and adored God that sitteth upon the throne, saying:  Amen. Alleluia" (Apoc. 19:4).

All of these appearances of both the four living creatures and the ancients are before the throne set in heaven; two of the only exceptions are in chapter six, in which the four living creatures show St. John the opening of the seals, and in chapter fifteen, when one of the four living creatures gives the vials to the seven angels. The former concerns events on earth represented by the opening of the seals and thus not before the throne; and the latter, also not before the throne, is before, or at least near to (as far as can be ascertained) "the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven" where those who had "overcome the beast, and his image, and the number of his name" are gathered: (Apoc. 15:2,5).

Hitherto in every case (excepting those two we have just listed), the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients are gathered before the throne.

The sole other exception to this rule is in chapter eleven, after the two witnesses are taken to heaven and when presumably the beast is defeated shortly thereafter, and when the angel sounds the seventh trumpet. Bear in mind this is the first timeline end: 

11:15  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.

11:16  And the four and twenty ancients who sit on their seats in the sight of God, fell on their faces and adored God, saying:

11:17  We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, who art and who wast and who art to come:  because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and thou hast reigned.

Where are the four living creatures ? They do not appear here with the four and twenty ancients. Verse nineteen indicates that there is an apparition in the temple near the end: "And the temple of God was opened in heaven:  and the ark of his
testament was seen in his temple.  And there were lightnings and voices
and an earthquake and great hail" (Apoc. 11:19). This is probably an apparition of the Blessed Virgin; but this does not explain the absence of the four living creatures before the throne together with the four and twenty ancients, as She can appear in more than one place. They are there every other time; so why is that ?

The reason is because in the first timeline only, the fourth Marian dogma was never defined.

 

That being so, there could not have been four living creatures to be represented in the vision. (Defined or not, they are still all true; but the Apocalypse is only 'aligned' when the fourth is defined; and the third, in 1854, is its approximation. By that time the great monarch was not coming).

The Assumption was defined only in 1950, well past the point, as we have seen, when in the first timeline the crisis should have reached its apogee.

 

That explains why the four living creatures appear with the ancients in every other section but not the part which concerns specifically the first timeline. The Apocalypse as a whole concerns the second. [111]

The first timeline is a possible fulfillment; the second also. Each are dependent on certain conditions being fulfilled; and whichever it happens to be, precludes the other. This was indicated very carefully by Our Lady of Fatima, Who in the Secret outlined in a deliberate manner what is to happen one way, and what is to happen the other way. And each way leads into the Apocalypse.

The only thing She could not tell us is why one is preferred over the other. She only told us what would happen, in general, either way. [111A]

 

 

(Continue to Section X)

Footnotes / Extended Details

 

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.