VIII. The Book Of Life

Two Timelines Of Apocalypse - Part Three (Section VIII) 

 

(Footnotes/Extended Details also on separate page)

 

 

 VIII.  The Book Of Life

-Thesis And Some Objections And Answers
-Where It All Ends And Begins Again
-The Application Of The Book Of Life
--Sealed And Unsealed Compared With The Baptism

--Particular And General Judgement
--The Merits Of Our Lord
--Deletion
--"Unmaking The Ring"

 

Though there are two timelines, it does not follow that the Book of Life must be opened either way. If that were so, there should be no reason not to simply present it as-is. The main purpose of the eschatological discourse was to warn the faithful, very near the end, not to be deceived as to the manner of Our Lord's Second Coming; there would not be a need to do that unless it were very important to understand this, because at that time, there will be false Christs who will attempt to deceive people into following them instead of Our Lord's words - an act of apostasy which cannot end well.

The selection of the timeline also means something quite significant for the possible benefit of many. The main difference between this, the antichrist-tribulation timeline [78] and the last end is that, at the very final days, it is up to each individual to keep faith or not (by trusting Our Lord's long-ago Word); but for the selection of the (preferred) timeline it was very important that enough people keep the faith so that the first crisis never happens to require Divine intervention.

In a sense, it is the devil who really chooses the timeline in a more active way, but the faithful choose it in a more passive way simply by keeping the faith (as of course they should). It is not a matter of consciously choosing to keep the faith just enough, or not enough, for this or that to happen; it is a matter of being as faithful as possible in any case; and in this way the first crisis is averted and did not require the great monarch or the three days' darkness. The second crisis, that of the infiltration of the hierarchy, was not averted; but the double-paradox is that the faithful had kept the faith sufficiently for that not to happen (to prevent the infiltration). Otherwise, if faith was insufficient, that crisis would have to be averted by the consecration of Russia. However, the thing is, the reverse is also true: The faith may have been insufficient to bring about the consecration of Russia. On this point we have been unable to decide. [78A]

 

But if that had happened, the second timeline would not have come about: The papacy would not have been 'taken out of the way' (2 Thess. 2:7), the events of Apocalypse chapter twelve would not have come to pass, and, most importantly, the seals would not have been opened (but the seals were already being opened beforehand - beginning in 1941. This point is developed further in footnote #116). It is a double paradox because keeping the faith sufficiently averted the first crisis, which led to the second; and keeping the faith sufficiently may or may not have led to the second crisis not being averted.

 

But the truth of the matter is that it is the second timeline which was intended all along. (The "mystery of God" or "God's secret design" of Apoc. 11:7). This is because it is the only timeline in which the book of life is unsealed, and that will be of benefit to many; it must be, otherwise it ought to be straightforward if we can simply go in that direction without interference from the devil. But there has to be interference from the devil, so it cannot be straightforward. Anyhow, just how beneficial it may be is not to be known for sure until the end.

It may be surmised that the devil would not want the book of life to be unsealed.

That it will be unsealed does not appear to be taken for granted; if it were, there would be no second timeline. It is God's intention, but something else had to happen: The faithful had to keep the faith long enough, and well enough; and the devil had to do something to defeat himself further: What this means is that the devil's actions also select the timeline. [78B] This is the passive and active parts mentioned earlier.

 

Consent or no ? The book of life was 'written from the foundation of the world'. This was before original sin. The original sin came about because the devil deceived Adam and Eve; and they consented to it. The crucial part is they consented to it.

What is equally crucial is that, in 1958, the whole Church might have followed an antipope, a false pope - unknowingly and without consent.

In the first timeline, the antichrist comes from without, from outside of Rome. He is not mistaken for a true pope, at least not by the whole Church. We cannot know for sure the manner of his deception. What it adds up to is whether people think the antichrist is greater than the papacy or whether they keep faithful to the last pope.

In the second timeline, the faithful cannot 'as per usual' keep the faith, expecting the pope to be the pope and yet he is not, and so endanger their souls by following a false pope. They did not consent to that. 

That is not a deception in the sense that they were told a lie, a contradiction, and chose wrongly as in Eden. This is taking away even the option of declining, since there was no other choice.

With the theory of evolution, for example, one can believe it or not; there is always the option to decline consent.

But a Catholic is obligated to recognize the pope; and, given there were no obvious way to decline the antipapacy, they had no choice but to unknowingly commit schism. Or at least that was the devil's plan to overcome the Church with the gates of hell. 

 

This did not happen, as we saw in chapter twelve of Apocalypse: '...Her son was taken up to God, and to his throne'. It is the same as St. Paul's message that 'he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way'.

Since it was impossible then to choose rightly, the option was removed.

The Baptism and its counterpart(s). It is in the nature of the papacy, and of the Church, that the faithful join willingly; and that means to actively believe the things of the Faith. It is not a negotiation between equals in the world, as it were a contract, as the modern-day construction of Babylon (the world anti-church) is to be. In fact, the nature of the anti-church appears to be that it is so easy to be part of it that one must actively decline. This is the reverse of the attempted universal schism of 1958; it is more of a cosmic black hole, where all light and matter is drawn in, unless one actively resists. It is not there yet, but with the 'Synod on Synodality' it has begun.

The only ones presumed not to be a part of this by default are the sedevacantists, especially if they trace their sedevacantism to 1958.

The book of life is the reverse of that; or, rather, the antichrist is the reverse of the book of life. It is not additive (as is the baptism), but to lose one's place therein one must actively decline it by choosing the antichrist instead. At least, that is how it is applied to our times (Apoc. 13:8, 17:8). We say 'the reverse of the book of life' because to accept the antichrist is to receive an 'anti-baptism' (the mark of the beast) from which one is deleted from the book of life rather than remaining written therein by default; while the true baptism is to be counted among the members of the Church in lieu of the book of life still being sealed (and nothing about this is changed after the fact).

 

But why is this 'anti-baptism' necessary for the antichrist, if "all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world" (Apoc. 13:8). We might call it an 'indelible mark' like the baptism; or an inversion of the sacrament of Confirmation (also indelible). It might be that, having lost one's place in the book of life, it is possible to restore it by the graces available through the Church - to be restored to the state of grace. [78C] But it is very probable that, having once received the mark of the beast, one cannot be restored to the book of life, if the mark of the beast really is an indelible mark, in reverse of the baptism. This would very likely enable the antichrist to retain his hold among those who might reconsider their allegiance afterwards.

Perhaps the 'mark of the beast' is the antichrist's promise that his followers 'will never fall away' and 'never be lost'. His church will thus be 'perfect'.

 

He might present the book of life as proof of universal salvation (everyone is included in his church by default), whereas in truth everyone begins therein because no one has followed the antichrist by default. It is as if where they intersect is where they divide; because of original sin, all are under sentence of death; the book of life reverses that (but it depends on one's conduct in life); so to reverse that the antichrist claims that all are saved but those who do not accept him - except the reverse is true. To make certain, he might say, all people have to do is accept his sign to be saved; but those who do not deserve to die (having shown 'manifest bad will', as it might be called). This has the effect both of affirming his position of 'default universal salvation' and of bestowing a kind of baptism or confirmation to confirm their salvation - except the reverse is true. (That is, though everyone begins in the book of life, not all will remain there depending on their conduct; and the 'anti-baptism' will confirm damnation rather than salvation).

 

It is difficult to see how he would be able to completely ignore Apocalypse, especially after the sixth seal, so he will try to 'flip the script' as it were; in this way and others (see "Flipping The Script"). [78D]

At least in our time, specifically for the time of the antichrist, that is how the book of life applies. At the end its role will be consummated. For all previous times, whether or not one may still be found in it depends on one's conduct in life. What we know for sure is in Apoc. 20:11-15. What we do not know is how far this goes.

 

A Kind Of Mirror-Opposite. As for the beast, the antichrist, it appears that, to draw in as much of the world as possible, everyone in the world is assumed to either be part of his antichurch, or at least have the desire for it. [79] Then, people will be confirmed by the infamous 'mark of the beast'. Before then, he may usurp the Apocalypse and say that 'everyone is saved' so long as they follow him - if he acknowledges the seals of the book of life; or, he may simply proclaim it on his own on account of his 'rising from the dead'. Both means to deceive may be true; possibly some will hear it one way, and others, another way; still others will hear both without seeing contradiction. The ones who are not deceived will not hear either of them, or any other ways and means that the antichrist may come up with.

 

The thing is, the beast/antichrist and the book of life are a kind of mirror image; and opposite. Our Lord unsealed the book and the antichrist pretends to be Our Lord Who unsealed the book, if he even acknowledges its existence. [79A] But as he will claim a higher authority than Our Lord Himself (2 Thess. 2:4) he will claim to overrule anything, and that includes the Apocalypse. This 'error', if one may so call it, resembles the error many 'Traditionalists' have made regarding the papacy: The 'pope' cannot be a heretic, so they believe the papal claimant remains pope and cannot fail even if he is a heretic (the papacy renders him immune to it in effect); whereas sedevacantists believe he cannot be a pope because he is a heretic. This is a circular argument on the part of Traditionalists which puts the papacy before the Faith which results in more faith in the papacy than the Faith itself; whereas sedevacantists have faith that the papacy cannot succumb to heresy; so the Faith is put before the papacy. This argument has be hashed many times; but in this instance the circular argument applies to the antichrist: If he can overrule Scripture and its Apocalypse, then anything Scripture and Apocalypse may say against him is overruled. The pattern is exactly the same.

 

We see that those who 'adore the beast' are not to be found in the book of life (Apoc. 13:8). Elsewhere it is written: "The beast, which thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall come up out of the bottomless pit...and the inhabitants on the earth...shall wonder, seeing the beast that was, and is not" (Apoc. 17:8). Will people believe this resurrection or Our Lord's ? It is as bad to place them both on equal footing, even if Our Lord's Resurrection is not denied. It is difficult to see how it can be other than that they are put on equal footing; but anything is possible.

 

Order Of Operations. The book of life was 'written from the foundation of the world', which means it existed before Adam and Eve, and original sin. [80] It was 'written within and without, sealed with seven seals'. What is written in it ? The names of everyone who ever existed (or will exist) in time; from the beginning to the end. The book is written 'within and without' because it is filled; no further possibilities are within. [80A]

It does not simply mean 'the names of everyone who is saved, whether through the old law or the baptism and membership in the Church'. It is not needed to confirm what is external to it; membership in the Church did not depend on it; membership in the Old Law did not depend on it.

Thus, the people whose names are not written as per Apoc. 13:8 and 17:8 are omitted not because they were never there in the first place, but because they were 'blotted out'. This is first signified in the fifth letter, to Sardis: "He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels" (Apoc. 3:5). This shows that one can lose his place due to sins, or some kind of fault which is not here specified; but for our times it is true for those who follow the antichrist, thinking that such is above the papacy or otherwise believing as though he is the saviour of the world. [81] St. Paul tells us he "sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God" or as Knox put it: "he enthrones himself in God’s temple, and proclaims himself as God" (2 Thess 2:4). This would not be possible unless certain extraordinary events had come about first: The sixth seal event (which looks, at first, like the end of the world but which will be called 'the Warning'), and the apparent return from the dead of a past antipope: 'the beast that was, and is not'.

The question of whom to follow when everything extraordinary begins to happen is put not in the form of a question, but nevertheless it was asked: St. Paul warned of the 'operation of error' that would seduce those who 'receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved'; the errors in our time are legion, and some of them are quite obvious errors (such as the correct number of sexes). Before everything happens, those who have 'trained in error', so to speak, and have rejected the truth again and again will be the first to follow the antichrist, thinking they will be saved: 'That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but consented to iniquity'. For many have already answered the question by placing little or no value on the truth.

-Thesis And Some Objections And Answers

The main thing to remember about this 'Book of Life Thesis' is that the book in question has hitherto not been a factor in the history of salvation. For the whole history of the world it has been sealed, and inert. When original sin happened, it was there, but not a factor; when Abraham lived and the Divine Promise was given to him, it was not a factor; when the Immaculate Conception happened, the Incarnation, Life, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord and the subsequent history of the Church, it was there, but not factored in. All this time it has remained sealed and has no reference at all in the history of salvation, in terms of its operation.

 

It has been mentioned before. In Daniel, it is written that, concerning the tribulation, "at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book" (Dan. 12:1); in Phillipians, St. Paul speaks of his "fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life" (Phil. 4:3). In neither case do they explicitly say that they are written into it; but in Apoc. 3:5 it is said that one can be blotted out.

Concerning this, Fr. Kramer writes [82] of the book of life: "It is really eternal, and the names of the elect are written there indelibly (Apoc. XIII. 8)"; and here he lists Apoc. 13:8 as evidence that their names are written there indelibly. We think that as the book was never opened before (not yet as of 2025) that everyone is written there, but not indelibly. 

 

Fr. Kramer continues: "St. Augustine says that no name inscribed there will be blotted out, while St. Thomas says that through justification the name is conditionally recorded but becomes indelible through perseverance and the entrance into eternal glory. It may allude to the baptismal register" (italics ours). We think that, if it made no difference in the economy of salvation, it may as well not be there at all, and certainly not to be sealed in such a way (from the foundation of the world no less) that what it took for it to be unsealed was a threat to the life of the Church, and therefore of the world - the very Passion of the Church in which she is following on the same path as her Lord. [82A]

 

It is not the baptismal register, as that is additive, and the book of life is subtractive. If one is added to the baptismal register and perseveres, he remains in the book of life; if he does not persevere, he does not remain in the book of life, baptism or not. [83]

Fr. Kramer continues: "The statement is rather hard to explain, because God foreknowing who will persevere will not blot out the name of anyone in the book. God's foreknowledge of final perseverance composes this book". The book, then, is not about final perseverance; as one can be blotted out.

 

Fr. Kramer adds: "Re-calling to his mind the book of 'life' carries an ominous message for the Bishop of Sardes [or Sardis], who is 'dead' spiritually and whose name will not be in the book without repentance". We think that passage is not addressed to the Bishop of Sardis in particular, but is addressed to some one person or persons through him and through this letter. [84] The message also applies to anyone else to whom it may, and it is probable those people will know it. Like to the bishop of Sardis it acts as a salutary warning to those who in their hearts know it to be true.

A foreseeable objection to the direction this inquiry has been going would be the heresy of universal salvation. Obviously it is not, as the books (the record of life) will be compared in the end to see who remains in the book of life: 

 

"Before this throne, in my vision, the dead must come, great and little alike; and the books were opened. Another book, too, was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged by their deeds, as the books recorded them" (Apoc. 20:12).

 

Another objection might be: What of all the souls who existed in the world before the Church, or even the Old Law, and has what is called 'invincible ignorance' ?

Answer: That is why we are not to make a definitive judgement on who is saved or who is condemned. It is not for us to know.

 

There is another thing which may be said to be a logical mystery, and is referred to in the above objection and its answer: Hitherto everyone who has passed has gone to Heaven, or Hell, or, for a time, Purgatory (which is not permanent, and is temporary before Heaven); or Limbo (which might be permanent). What of those who are in Limbo ? In particular those who died, or were killed, before being born, or baptized.

Answer: It is in the last two books of Apocalypse one must look. St. John writes: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more. And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" (Apoc. 21:1-2). [85] 

 

The answer has to do with the 'new earth'. St. John sees the New Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven to dwell in this new earth. Those who dwell therein are of the City of God; the Church and the Old Law: 

 

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Apoc. 21:14).

That is clear enough. The Church leads to the New Jerusalem, and is that holy city.

 

"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). 

 

Fr. Kramer comments: "This verse is made up of two negative and one positive statements. No one can enter the Holy City, if he be defiled by original sin". [86]  He writes of the last two chapters from the perspective of the 'millennium': "During the Millennium, the angels of the gates will be so watchful as to keep out of the Church all the abominations that have in the past found entrance at times of wholesale conversions" (Apoc. 21, The Book Of Destiny, p. 218). Fr. Berry has a different view (Apoc. 21, The Apocalypse Of St. John, p. 208). It is not our intention to do a large-scale comparison of these views with ours. For now it will be said that the visions of the final two chapters concern the continuance of God's plan after the book of life has been unsealed. And that the book of life is unsealed only in the second timeline, not the first. And that this affects everything.

It must be stressed again that the existence of the two timelines was to enable a certain choice to be made. It was always in God's plan for the book of life to be unsealed, but it was not a given. Something else had to give way for that to happen. In a similar sense, as Christ had to die on the cross so as to open the gates of Heaven, so also does the Church have to undergo Her own Passion to unlock the book of life. The main idea to keep in mind is that the book of life did not have to be unsealed to do what the Church has always already been doing. 

 

In the end it is, however, a 'new earth': "And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new" (Apoc. 21:5). What is being made new that we ought to bear in mind ?

The Four Last Things are: "Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell". It is understood that everyone who is saved is going to Heaven. Even so, the holy city, the New Jerusalem, comes down out of Heaven to be in this new earth, for which is created also 'a new heaven'. [87] This holy city ought not to be confused with the 'beloved city' which is endangered very near the end: "And they came upon the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city" (Apoc. 20:8). There is also the 'camp of the saints' (called 'encampment' by Knox), which necessarily implies that it is not permanent. But the city seen by St. John in the end has the trappings of permanence: it is "clothed in God’s glory. The light that shone over it was bright as any precious stone, as the jasper when it is most like crystal;" (Apoc. 21:11~Knox). We will return to this point below; that this city is not what is spoken of in chapter twenty. [87A]

 

What is the difference between being saved and being in the Book of Life, then ? 

 

Answer: Being saved is going to Heaven, and that means being in the book of life; not being condemned is also being in the book of life, but not going to Heaven. One is saved by being in the Church; one is not condemned by being in the book of life.

 

Instead, Heaven comes down to earth in the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is where the members of the Church dwell.

 

And that is, at least in part, the purpose for the 'new heaven and the new earth'. So it has not to do with the Millennium.

 

 

-Where It All Ends And Begins Again 

 

Without delving too deeply in the last two chapters of Apocalypse, we will briefly look at some of Fr. Kramer's conclusions regarding some of those the passages. [88]

 

At the end of his verse one commentary, Fr. Kramer describes the world renewed: "The sciences have been developed and been proven to harmonize with divine revelation and to call for a Supreme Cause, God, as the origin and end of creation...Theology has been perfected and philosophy been made to serve theology...The moral laws of the Church have leavened all governments to aim at justice for all and privileges for none...The source of all contentment and felicity in the world is admitted to be a virtuous life, which receives its inspiration and strength from the eucharistic Lamb" (Book of Destiny, p. 219).

All this and more was to be for the Millennium; and for this, the world was to be renewed: "And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true" (Apoc. 21:5).

 

Fr. Kramer continues: "The Church is worthy to be the Queen of the Lamb and with Him graciously to rule the nations of the world. And she shall people heaven with the souls she begets and rears for Christ, the 'Father of the world to come'. She is thus prepared for the Great Consummation" (Book Of Destiny, p. 219).

This is the part we are having difficulty with, in its ordering. We do not doubt that there is a Great Consummation; however, we doubt it is there (Apocalypse 21). We think it is here: "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). From this perspective, the last two chapters describe the 'world without end', according to the Glory Be.

 

Thus, we do not consider the consummation to arrive after the last two chapters of Apocalypse. This is of course debatable, and before too long we may come to the truth of it. For now we will quote the words of he who sat on the throne, who said, "Behold, I make all things new. (These words I was bidden write down, words most sure and true.)" (Apoc. 21:5~Knox). Afterwards St. John writes: "And he said to me, It is over. I am Alpha, I am Omega, the beginning of all things and their end; those who are thirsty shall drink-it is my free gift-out of the spring whose water is life" (Apoc. 21:6~Knox). The Challoner translation says 'It is done'. This does not suggest another end yet to come. 

 

It depends on how one looks at it. We believe that when St. John saw the New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven, that the consummation was done. When the great voice from the throne said, "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and death shall be no more, etc" (Apoc. 21:4), this is to say, in part, how it is done; similar to showing one his inheritance which will be his, once the journey is complete. In other words, the vision of the New Jerusalem is the fulfillment, and during this vision is declared some of the things which will be done when it is attained.

But there is more to consider:

The New Jerusalem is also called, "the bride, the wife of the Lamb" (Apoc. 21:9). She is called both the bride and the wife of the Lamb, but they are already together: "And I saw no temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb" (Apoc. 21:22). There is no need for a temple representing faith in a future promise when it is in fulfillment.

 

Afterwards, one of the seven angels (who held one of the vials of chapter sixteen) came to St. John and also showed him the New Jerusalem (Apoc. 21: 9-10).

 

He tells our visionary: "Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand" (Apoc. 22:10).  This is in contrast to Daniel: After describing the tribulation which 'should be unto a time, and times, and half a time', Daniel asks, 'What shall be after these things' ? Whereupon he was answered: "Go, Daniel, because the words are shut up, and sealed until the appointed time" (Daniel 12:7-9).

  

Then, speaking for 'he, that sitteth on the throne', he says: "Behold, I come quickly" (Apoc. 22:7; "Patience, I am coming soon"~Knox). He repeats the phrase in Apoc. 22:12. In this context, the description of the New Jerusalem and of the "river of water of life, clear as crystal" (Apoc. 22:1) is, even as St. John has previewed it, seen to be established. 

 

In other words, when during the vision St. John is told 'Behold, I come quickly', it is the same as saying, 'This is what it will be like when I have come'; it is not 'When this has happened, I am very near', as though the vision is prior to, and not of, the consummation.

 

Fr. Kramer considers the situation of the last two chapters of Apocalypse as though the work of salvation is not yet complete: "This race of men has been reared since the day of Redemption; more are added to it daily; and when its number is complete enough to satisfy God's intentions, the judgment of the world under Antichrist shall begin" (The Book Of Destiny, p.221). However, this cannot be, as in St. John's vision the angel tells him: "there shall be no curse any more" (Apoc. 22:3). The curse was lifted beforehand, and that is why the 'river of the water of life' is seen by St. John in his vision. Fr. Kramer's view is one step removed, as it were, from the actual end (and new beginning).

 

In the end, the last two chapters is the state of the 'new heaven and new earth' after the consummation, with the New Jerusalem always present, with no curse any more, and that this is the beginning of 'all things made new'. Our visionary was not to 'seal up the words of this prophecy', unlike Daniel, for after the Resurrection the time was at hand.

-The Application Of The Book Of Life

One of the things we are considering is where everyone who is written in the book of life will be. The elect and members of the Church will reign in Heaven forever, but there is an unknown number who may be in the book of life but not in the baptismal register. This includes everyone else from Genesis to the end of the one thousand years of the period of peace. [89]

We know that the life's record of every soul will be compared to the book of life in some way at the end: "Before this throne, in my vision, the dead must come, great and little alike; and the books were opened. Another book, too, was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged by their deeds, as the books recorded them" (Apoc. 20:12~Knox). Here we see that the book of life is unsealed, and it merely remained to open it.

One can be 'blotted out' of the book of life (Apoc. 3:5). But if it were sealed from the beginning, how came one to be written therein in the first place ? If it is sealed, it is inaccessible. No access, though it is retained by 'him that sat on the throne'. 

 

When first we see it, the book is 'sealed with seven seals'; but it is also "written within and without" (Apoc. 5:1). Knox called it a scroll, but the meaning is made more plain: "And now I saw that he who sat on the throne carried in his right hand a scroll. The inside of the page and the outside were both written on, and it was sealed with seven seals". This means that it is filled up, and nothing can be added to it.

It is possible that the names of everyone who may possibly come to exist, in either timeline, is written in this book, or scroll; every possible derivative from Adam and Eve. If this is so, then the number of predestined (according to how the history of the world unfolds), although known to God from the beginning, is not added to this book; they were already there.

 

Unlike the baptismal register, this book is not additive. The baptismal register has no reference at all to the book of life, which might never have been unsealed. The establishment of the Church is as an encampment of Heaven upon the earth (with a corresponding high standard, to merit a place in Heaven, using all sacraments and obtaining forgiveness of sins to aid in this), in which as many souls as possible may be saved all the while operating as though the book of life may never be unsealed and even as though it did not exist.

Does it also include the names of those who would never come to exist in the other timeline, whichever one came to be fulfilled ? But this is of no consequence; it only matters who came to exist and their individual fates. Free will is a factor, but all possibilities are taken into account. [*89A]

 

--Sealed And Unsealed Compared With The Baptism

So long as the book is sealed: If one is in the baptismal register, one is a member of the Church and can be saved; if one is not, they are presumed lost (although ultimately no official judgement is made on the part of the Church). This shows how comparatively few are saved through the establishment of the Church, the encampment from Heaven. There is no reference to the book of life; all who are saved are rescued from the sea, as from a shipwreck.

But there is a foundation underneath the sea itself: "And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth" (Apoc. 12:16).

At the judgement, then, all who are in the baptismal register may be saved, according to their state of soul, and for those who are not registered, one cannot know until the Last Judgement.

If the book is unsealed, then the above remains true, except that there is more:

All possible names are already therein; it only remains to compare the book of life with the individual books representing the life's deeds of each individual soul.

If the name represents one who was never conceived, then it is null; if the name exists, then the next step is taken:

If the name is of a soul which exists and is in the baptismal register and is in the state of grace, then that soul is saved (going to Heaven).

If the name is in the baptismal register and is not in the state of grace (but is in the book of life, as presumed from the start), then that soul's life's deeds (as "written in the books" - Apoc. 20:12) is compared to the book of life (how this may be done we cannot know). This is to see if the name is to be retained in the book.

 

If the name is not in the baptismal register (but is in the book of life, as presumed from the start), then that soul's deeds is compared (in a way we cannot know with exactitude) with certain requirements which results in a judgement. If the judgement is favourable, then that soul is not condemned. If the judgement is not favourable, then the name is no longer in the book of life. Before we continue, it must be made clear:

If someone is found in the book of life, it is not necessarily because it is a predestined soul; it is because, after the comparison (the exact nature of which we cannot know), the name is retained.

In other words, the book of life contains all names before the comparison with the 'books of life's deeds' (excepting some from the generation during the time of antichrist before the first resurrection - Apoc. 20:4-6). If this were not so, the judgement would not be indicated by Apoc. 20:12, as they would already be judged; the text may as well skip to Apoc. 20:15: "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire".

Thus, whomsoever is (still) 'found written in the book of life' is not condemned. They are found or not found after the comparison (the exact nature of which we cannot know); this implies that, in the process of comparison, changes are being made.

The book is not simply opened with all results already obtained. [89B]

--Particular And General Judgement

The particular judgement of each individual soul is, according to the teaching of the Church, the same as it will be during the general judgement (Apoc. 20:12). This is true without reference to the book of life (at least until Apoc. 13:8, 17:8, and the reign of the actual antichrist - see footnotes #89 and #89A)

Is it necessary to say that the teaching of the Church is not wrong, nor do we wish to contradict the Church ? However, the Church, this whole time, operated without reference to the book of life. The Apocalypse, of which its whole purpose concerns this book, is part of the tradition of the Church, by dint of it being there; even if it was not understood or even meant to be understood beforehand.

 

Although the existence of this book was known at least since the time of Daniel and has mention in the New Testament (Philippians 4:3), it plays no role in the economy of salvation. Those who are saved are written in it as a matter of course. It is different when it concerns those who are not condemned (as opposed to saved, which means going to Heaven); their final judgement is reserved for the end.

Since it was written 'from the foundation of the world' (Apoc. 17:8) it means it was written before original sin had happened. We can say with confidence that God's predestined are written within. But it should be asked, if they are predestined, why would they need to be ? That would be redundant. Does Heaven need a book of life to record the names of those who are going to be saved, as opposed to those who, because they have not the Faith, are most likely not ? Then it would be as though the saved are saved twice, and the damned are damned twice.

 

The whole thing only makes sense if this book was written for those who might not otherwise be saved, due to original sin, and the devil's malice (as we have seen).

This is why the last book is called 'Revelations'. If the Church had got that far, without requiring the Divine intervention which results in the first timeline ending, something else happens.

 

 

--The Merits Of Our Lord

 

Our Lord's merits are enough to save all. But not without those who choose to follow Him, in Faith. This is to rectify the choice which was made in Eden; there are many nuances to this, but that is basically what it is.

 

We have seen how the devil tried, in 1958, to catch the entire Church at once through a mere technicality. This is worse than the deception of Eden, since in Eden, though they were deceived, they at least had a choice.

 

Thus the baptism and salvation through the Church is additive, that is, one must be actively added to the number though the baptism (or a desire for it). Conversely, the book of life is subtractive, that is, one must be actively subtracted from the number written within through something egregious.

 

Also required to be a member of the Church is unity with the papacy: "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII).

 

This is true especially as long as the book of life is sealed. So long as it is sealed, no one can be saved outside of the Church.

 

Why not simply open up the book of life from the beginning, then ?

 

Because it was not merited. Our Lord's merits made it possible.

 

Why not open it at the Resurrection then ?

 

At Our Lord's Resurrection, He opened the gates of Heaven. So from then, it was possible for souls to enter Heaven. The Divine institution of the Church, Heaven's encampment on earth, was thus established as the way to obtain salvation, through the merits of Our Lord.

 

But the world was still under the power of original sin. That could not simply be undone.

--Deletion

As for those who are removed from the book of life (due especially to a specific, egregious, decision) it is certainly done when the real, actual antichrist appears, the 'man of sin' of St. Paul in Thessalonians: "And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world" (Apoc. 13:8). 

We do not believe souls are predestined for hell, except that their own choices led them there. Although God knows from the beginning how it will all happen, under the curse of original sin (even though was to be a Redeemer), He also knows that all are under a curse. 

We must also avoid the heresy of universal salvation (numerous heretics, and in particular of Vatican '2') and that of predestination to hell (Calvinistic).

Knox writes the verse similarly, but the sense is somewhat different: "all the dwellers on earth fell down in adoration of him, except those whose names the Lamb has written down in his book of life, the Lamb slain in sacrifice ever since the world was made".

 

The sense of the translation is subtly different between the two. Knox wrote it in the understanding that all who are saved are written down in the book. This is true, but in our opinion it is not complete. It gives the sense that the people who are to be saved, yes, are written in the book; however, we do not think that they are written into the book when it is unsealed: It was "written within and without, and sealed with seven seals"(Apoc. 5:1), so it follows that their names were there 'from the foundation of the world'. There was no access to the book so long as it was sealed, and so long as it was held by 'him that sat on the throne'.

We know that it is possible to be 'blotted out' of the book of life: "He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels" (Apoc. 3:5 - Sardis). The sense of this verse (and of all the verses in the seven letters concerning whom 'shall overcome') is that of the time right before the seventh seal is opened, or right afterwards. 

 

For instance, in the letter to Philadelphia, the 'hour of temptation' is implied to be yet in the future: "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Apoc. 3:10).

In the earlier verse cited, it is implied, then, that there is a particular fault which exists which merits deletion from the book of life, when it is unsealed. Knox wrote it as: "...his name I will never blot out of the book of life, etc". So there was possibly an intent to do it, when it became time. That time is not before the book is unsealed.

The 'hour of temptation' which will 'try them that dwell upon the earth' would probably be related to the last two seals being opened, which is a false prophecy being fulfilled (see "The Last Three Seals In Our Time"). Not very long afterwards the antichrist's reign of 'two and forty months' would begin.

 

In this sense then, we read Apoc. 13:8 as 'all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are {deleted from} the book of life of the Lamb, etc'. This does not contradict the other sense, in which those who did not adore the beast are {still} written.

 

There is no form of past tense to indicate that those who are not written in the book at that time have been written there before. It is simply stated that those names 'are not written' at that time. They may have been there before, or may not; we think this truth was veiled deliberately. The real implication is that, in adoring the beast, one's place in the book of life is forfeit; as a mortal sin (as it must be).

 

One may also say that if they were always destined to adore the beast from the beginning, then there is no reason to state that they are not in the book of life, as it is obvious that to worship the antichrist is exactly what everyone should not do. But again, if they were destined to do that from the beginning, then they were predestined for hell, and that is Calvinistic. Therefore their names had to be in the book of life beforehand the same as everyone else.

 

However, one might say that, due to their sins (and believing not the truth, but consenting to iniquity - 2 Thess. 2:11), the people who worship the beast have already forfeited their place in the book of life, and that therefore they were predisposed to worship the beast; thus, they were not written in the book of life.

 

But then everyone else who ever committed a mortal sin might also have been deleted from the book of life. But this cannot be, as it was under seal. Therefore no one was actually 'blotted out' until it was unsealed and they are found to 'adore' the beast as per Apoc. 13:8. 

This would seem to equate mortal sin with being deleted from the book. It is not for us to say what in particular would cause that to happen except that one 'worships' the beast as though he were the saviour in place of Our Lord while, at the same time, believing he is the pope. That part is certain.

One may observe that certain conditions are reversed: Those who believe in Christ (meaning also His Church) are 'written into the baptismal register'; whereas the book of life shows everyone written into it who has not believed the antichrist or, conversely, everyone not written in it who does believe the antichrist (we will revisit this point further on). But this does not apply only for when it is unsealed and afterwards. As it was 'written within and without' while still sealed, as St. John observed, everyone was written in it beforehand.

 

Disposition. It is true that 'believing not the truth but consenting to iniquity' predisposes one to also consent to the reign of the antichrist. However, they have to actually do it when the time comes for the judgement to take effect. That is why their names not being written in the book of life is mentioned specifically with respect to worship of the antichrist.

 

Also, it is not simply that they 'adore' the antichrist as a 'saviour' (as he will appear to be after near disasters in general and the sixth seal event in particular). It is that they adore him over instead of Our Lord as the Saviour; and as a pope over instead of all the true popes; and as, perhaps, the Father over instead of 'him that sat on the throne'. [90]

    

The other verse indicates the same thing: "...and the inhabitants on the earth (whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world) shall wonder, seeing the beast that was, and is not" (Apoc. 17:8). There is no past tense; it is simply stated that, as of that time, their names are not written therein. It does not say, definitely, that they never were written. We have already seen why.

 

Knox writes it as "The sight of this beast which lived once, and now is dead, will strike awe into every dweller on earth, except those whose names have been written, before the world was, in the book of life". Again, we have to disagree with the sense in which this verse is given by Knox: Everyone who is in the book of life at this time is there still, as opposed to those who are not there still. [90A]

 

 

Failsafe ? One might say that this book exists as a kind of 'failsafe' for those who believe the truth, or have the desire for it, but have no access to the sacraments, as the Church is hidden in the world today. However, we know of cases in which Catholic Christians had no access to the sacraments for a least a century (Japan, the 1600s-1800s), and it is for certain that, if they had kept the Faith, God's grace is available through greater than ordinary means; and the Church as a whole supports its distant members with the prayers and Masses of those members who are in the ordinary dioceses.

However, there are no such ordinary dioceses today; so what of those members who have no access to the sacraments, and merely exist in the world today, keeping the Faith as best they can under the circumstances ?

In that case, the Holy Rosary of Our Lady of Fatima is their means. Sr. Lucia reported that "the Most Holy Virgin, in these last times in which we live, has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary...to such an extent that there is no problem...above all spiritual...that cannot be solved by the Rosary". [91]

If it were not so, then the continuous act of keeping the Faith with prayer despite everything ought to be enough to remain in the book of life. And it is. However, Catholics did not know that specifically. Also, being in today's world requires many more graces to withstand the assaults on the Faith and the soul through temptations of all kinds. And the Holy Rosary is the main source of that grace. However, all of this is still without reference to the book of life.

What is in full reference to the book of life is the act of adoration of the antichrist in particular. Without doubt, this causes the erasure of one's name from the book.

 

 

Capacity for believing the truth. St. Paul told us that the antichrist comes 'in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish'; that those who are spiritually dead will find their 'truth' in him. This is a consequence of not only a deficiency of love for the truth, but of prioritizing other things above the truth; for example, equality/equalism - all Marxist errors - and 'wokeism'. [92]  This applies to the most basic truths in the world, such as there being two sexes. Believing this, or not, is open to everyone; it is not a matter of Faith or not having the Faith. But it is a basic truth.

It is about most basic truths as this rather than following the pope in Rome which is the test. As the papacy is 'taken out of the way', it is not enough to cause people to lose their souls only by rejecting the true papacy (knowingly or not). It is the intention and the act of 'rejecting the true papacy and believing the antichrist instead of the true papacy'. And they will believe they are following the true papacy, as their 'capacity' for the truth is made deficient through their prior acts and intentions. [93]

"That is why God is letting loose among them a deceiving influence, so that they give credit to falsehood; he will single out for judgement all those who refused credence to the truth, and took pleasure in wrong-doing" (2 Thess. 2:10-11~Knox). The older translation calls it the 'operation of error', to believe lying. "That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity".

The 'operation of error' is 'untruths being given official status'. This ranges from the antipapacy in Rome to the institutions which promote the theory of evolution to the whole mass media which gives 'official' status to error. It is the fulfillment of Our Lady of Fatima's words that "Russia will spread her errors throughout the whole world, etc". Error was institutionalized in Russia as even the French Revolution did not do for France; and the errors related to communism (and its false god, equality) are sent throughout the world from there as official state policy.

When St. Paul says that the 'man of sin' comes 'in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish', he is saying that those who have trained themselves in error have positioned themselves to lose their names from the book of life. Thus it is that they will be most disposed to worship the antichrist, and by so doing, confirm their removal from the book of life.

 

But they are not yet removed until they do that ultimate act; however, by not having a love for the truth, the 'operation of error' is sent that they confirm themselves to believe in error instead; and the 'man of sin' comes to confirm them. [94]

 

That is the meaning, we believe, of verse eleven: "That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity" (2 Thess. 2). By not believing the truth beforehand (even the most basic truths which do not require faith), they will believe instead the antithesis of the Faith (which can be in harmony with basic truths which do not require faith), especially when it is 'proven' with signs and lying wonders. [95]

 

In short, by having scorn for the truth beforehand they prepare themselves, spiritually, to receive and accept the antichrist. That is the judgement.

 

 

The weight of sins. It will be seen that those people could have been saved, if they had a general principle for the truth. It is one thing not to believe the Faith on faith alone; it is another to disbelieve obvious truths on a kind of 'anti-faith' (that there is no objective truth) which happens to contradict various things supported by the Faith itself, such as that there are only two sexes: "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27).

 

Lastly, it should be added that the 'hour of temptation' cited earlier (Apoc. 3:10) is, we believe, the fulfillment of the false prophecy Garabandal. It is false because it is not of Heaven, but nevertheless it will be fulfilled (as 'signs and lying wonders'). 'The Warning' (or the 'illumination of conscience') is supposed to reveal everyone's sins to themselves (through the action, we believe, of the Accuser and the other demons cast down since Apoc. 12:9-10 - see "The Last Three Seals In Our Time"). But this will not make people believe the truth, necessarily (the 'illumination of conscience' is not about what is true). It will make them seek salvation in the one who will soon appear thereafter in Rome - the eighth, as the seventh 'must remain for a short time' (Apoc. 17:10-11). It appears that people's willingness to believe the truth, or not, will be decisive as to whether they are deceived by the antichrist; even their sins are secondary to this measure, though doubtless it is very significant.

This is not to undervalue the consequences of sin. It is simply that, if one will not believe the truth, or have an affinity for the truth, or any priority given to the truth thereof, then their sins are simply added to their judgement. However, it is true that the greater the affinity for sin in any given individual the more that individual's capability to hold the truth is lessened as a consequence. The overall point is to parallel the Faith in this: If one keeps the Faith, then one's sins may be forgiven; if one does not keep the Faith, then their sins are not forgiven, as the proper forgiveness is not asked. If one has value for the truth, then one may possibly reject the antichrist; if one does not have value for the truth, he will not see the contradictions between the dogmas of the Faith and the antichrist, who places himself above the papacy while claiming continuity with the papacy; in this case, one's sins, whether greater or lesser, are moot.
 
To believe the contradiction of the antichrist and the papacy is arguably the greatest sin on an intellectual level. It is the next thing to denying God to His Face, as had happened with Christ two millennia ago; but the Resurrection had not happened yet at that time. [95A)

 

 

--"Unmaking The Ring"

 

Earlier we had examined briefly Fr. Kramer's statement concerning this verse:

"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). 

 

Fr. Kramer comments: "This verse is made up of two negative and one positive statements. No one can enter the Holy City, if he be defiled by original sin".

 

We do not quite agree with this interpretation. He sees the last two chapters as concerning the Millennium, whereas we consider them to concern the time after the consummation. There is no original sin anymore after the consummation; but before the end of the world, it is still in the world. However, that is still not the point to make here.

We have considered the question of what effect the unsealing of the book of life might have. Some conclusions thus far:

1.  It does not simply confirm what the Church is already doing.

The point of the book of life is to confirm them that are saved and those that are not condemned. There is a difference. It might as well not be there if it adds nothing to what the Church has always been doing.

 

2.  It is unsealed as a result of the threat to the papacy and therefore the Church.

Is it a 'failsafe' for our times, when the sacraments are largely unavailable ? But then what of the Holy Rosary ? Both can be aids; but if one knows of the Holy Rosary and its efficacy then one does not need the book of life in addition. However, those who do not know such things do need the book of life because they do not have the truth. They may, however, not have a love for lying.

 

'The gates of hell shall not prevail' against the Church. The book of life may be a kind of 'failsafe' for the Church when the papacy is 'taken out of the way'; but the requirement to follow the papacy is also taken away as a consequence. They remain in the book of life and, if many have followed the antipapacy for some time, this cannot be held against them, as that consequence is not in effect until the book is unsealed. The time since 1958 is thus a kind of limbo for the Church.

As for those who are outside of the Church but not yet inside the antichurch, this is also a kind of limbo until the book is unsealed. By limbo it is meant that whether or not they will remain in the book of life cannot yet be decided.

 

3.  To give allegiance, consent, adoration to the antichrist is to be condemned.

 

Moreso than anything else, this results in the immediate removal from the book of life. However, due to one's sins, one will likely be predisposed to make this allegiance and thus incur the penalty. It does not ultimately depend on sins but on love for the truth - or not; but this is necessarily linked.

 

4.  It pre-dated original sin: "Written from the foundation of the world".

What is the full implication of this ?

"And there shall be no curse any more; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him" (Apoc. 22:3).

 

Concerning this verse, Fr. Kramer writes: "The curse also shall be banned. When the sin of Adam merited death for all mankind, God said: 'Cursed is the earth in thy work' (Gen. III. 17). This curse settled upon all conditions of life and was part of the punishment for DISOBEDIENCE. Original sin, the supreme penalty for disobedience, is taken away by Baptism. After the millennium begins, the original disobedience will have been amended by obedience to Christ, and most of the penalty shall be removed. Death has lost its sting; diseases and plagues shall ravage mankind no more. The war between man and the lower creation shall cease, and universal peace shall reign. This may not be the literal meaning of Isaias (XI. 6-9), but this verse suggests it. When the curse shall depart, grief and bitter tears, mourning and despair shall vanish from the earth" (The Book Of Destiny, p.232).

Original sin is taken away by the baptism. But the baptism is, as we have seen, without reference to the book of life. It is instituted with the Church and the other sacraments, to save souls - but again without reference to the book of life.

So when the book is unsealed nothing changes for them.

 

But everyone else is written therein. Perhaps the taking away of the curse has something to do with the unsealing of this book of life. 

Due to original sin, nobody can be saved from his sins without the Redeemer, Who instituted the Church and the sacraments. This same Redeemer opened the seals on this book.

 

The best metaphor for this is from The Lord Of The Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien. The One Ring was to 'bind in darkness' all who are under its sway, including those other rings and their holders, and those who are under them. Original sin is like the One Ring, 'to bind all in darkness'. [96]

Opening the seals to the book of life, then, is like "unmaking the ring" - 'unmaking original sin'. In a sense, the book of life can do this, as it contains the names of everyone who might exist before original sin even happened.

What this means is that 'the odds will be even'. That is to say, instead of everyone being under sentence of death by default, due to original sin, some other standard of judgement is in motion. What this is, precisely, is the question; but there are some approximations which can be made:

The 'books' of the Day of Judgement: "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works" (Apoc. 20:12-13).

 

Whether or not someone remains in the book of life depends on whether, after this comparison (for how else can it be called), the result is favourable.

What is removed from the equation is original sin as the original sentence to death. This is due to the unsealing of the book of life. If it were not unsealed, there would be no comparison to be made; except whether or not someone had the baptism and were in the state of grace (there are some extraordinary methods to obtain the necessary graces; but we here speak of the default modus of the Church).

It might be said that this 'cancels out' a great many things which are an effect of the weakness of original sin; but although the intellect is also darkened, it is not completely bereft of its function. Thus it was still possible to know what the truth is; and one's works or deeds are a result of one's application of the intellect, for better or worse.

This is the closest that we can approximate to the standard which might be applied at the Last Judgement with the book of life as a factor.

However, this does not excuse people from exerting whatever effort they are able to keep the Commandments, avoid vice and sin, and cultivate virtue.

The mission of the Church is not ended with the unsealing of the book of life. However, given what is to happen with the martyrdom of Apocalypse chapter fourteen and the 'First Resurrection' at the beginning of the period of peace, it is not known in what manner it is to be continued. That question will be answered for certain upon the First Resurrection.

 

 

(Continue to Section IX) 

 

Footnotes / Extended Details

 

 

78.  There ought to be a better way to express this. Either way there is a period of peace; either way there is the antichrist; but the difference is when the final end will arrive after the antichrist: shortly, or after a long while ? Thus, the first timeline is the shortened one: Crisis averted, period of peace, tribulation-antichrist, and the End. The second timeline is the longer one: Crisis not averted, false peace, tribulation-antichrist, 1000 year period of peace, last tribulation-End. How might this affect the shortening of the tribulation which is promised ? "And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh should be saved:  but, for the sake of the elect which he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days" (Mark 13:20). It does not, as we see in Apoc. 20:9.

78A.  This must be by design.

 

78B.  He must have been aware of some kind of plan based on how the Apocalypse is structured; but as the plan is not stated clearly, he did not know what it was, and neither did the Church. But it was there all along. Pius XII did not err when he did not consecrate Russia with all the bishops of the world. If this was done, a request which was not intended to be fulfilled, it is because the head of the Holy Family decreed it be done. He never sinned, but nevertheless had the mark of original sin, and as such is capable of arranging this. He can be 'not entirely forthright' without actually lying. But it is true that the Fatima requests were requests and not commands. The only thing really commanded was the revelation of the third secret in 1960. Only a false pope would not heed such a command, whereas a true pope may not heed a request. We think St. Joseph arranged things this way for the devil to mislead himself without actually lying.

78C.  To 'adore' the antichrist after the unsealing of the book of life is a kind of 'new original sin', and a mortal sin. We have likened the unsealing to a kind of 'unmaking the Ring', or 'unmaking original sin' as it were (a unique concept introduced in Lord Of The Rings, and, we suspect, for this very purpose). There are many consequences which follow this line; but for now the point is, when the book of life is unsealed, everything has changed (and yet some things will remain the same).

78D.  He might present the book of life this way; or he might simply declare that everyone is saved anyway (except for those who oppose him) without reference to it. There are any number of lines he can take, and if they are contradictory, it does not matter; like Vatican '2's religious indifferentism, one way may be good for some, and another way good for others. The one condition being that everyone accept him as 'the legitimate successor', or at least not to deny it. For those who are undecided, they are not lost according to these conditions.

79.  This is like 'negative optioning'. In the corporate world, in order to wring more money out of paying customers, a new service may be added which was not asked for and for which the customer will be billed unless he opts out of it instead. Except in this case one must opt out of the antichurch, according to the man of sin. The truth is closer to the reverse; that one must actively opt into it, by accepting the mark of the beast. But those who 'adore' the beast are already there in spirit (Apoc. 13:8). There is a little grey area so long as one has not accepted the mark.

79A.  We cannot decide whether the antichrist will completely ignore it, or completely co-opt it. Anything in the middle is ineffectual, and he will not be ineffectual. It is possible he will take both lines, and this will not seem a contradiction to those who accept the one or the other. Not to belabour the point, but it is puzzling.

This depends in part on whether the sixth seal event is acknowledged as such or whether it will be associated solely with Garabandal's 'Warning'. Again, it is difficult to see how he can completely ignore Apocalypse. But he if acknowledges the book of life, he has to acknowledge Apocalypse; the reverse is not necessarily true.

80.  Some may find this manner of going about it to be unconventional; i.e. using logical terminology related to computers. The thing is, that is the only way to come to this understanding of it. We do not think Apocalypse is meant to be conventional. Having said that, we continue:

 

The point is that this book with everyone's name in it existed before the original sin. The implications of this are far reaching. In military terms, this is called a failsafe. 

However, it is absolutely not a factor in the history of salvation until it is unsealed. Everything was done, it seems, assuming the worst-case scenario: That this book would never be unsealed. When it is unsealed, it will be of benefit; but we will not know how far that goes. As for everyone already saved through the Church and the Old Law, this affects them not at all.

 

To put it in Boolean logic terms: If one is in the Church (or Old Law), one is there AND in the book of life (sealed or not), and is saved. Same for the OR function: If one is in the Church OR the book of life (still sealed), one is not condemned (as per the Last Judgement); but to remain in the book of life, the requirements for that AND the 'books that were opened' before the throne (Apoc. 20:12) have to be compared to a positive result. 

 

However, the exact requirements for one to remain in the Book of Life is not for us to know, and one should not try to know. (It is enough to know to pray, and avoid sin, and do penance).

For the OR function above, it only works if the book of life is still sealed (and thus, condition is true by default). It does not work if the second condition is not true (not written in the book of life). To explain:

 

The only impossible result (using Boolean logic) is to be in the Church (or Old Law) but not the book of life. This is a chimera, and impossible. (This would be as if the antichrist were the same as Christ. And as if one can choose between the Church and the book of life, as though one opposes the other, or at least are two equal alternatives - an impossibility. It is not even possible for apostates who had the baptism but lost the Faith, as they are out of the Church. They are, however, not blotted out of the book of life at this time).

So to avoid the second death, one is both in the Church AND the Book (1~1); OR at least in the Book (0~1); but not in the Church AND out of the Book, an impossibility (1~0); and not neither (0~0). The last one represents non-existence or else a reprehensible one. It also does not 'compute' until the book is unsealed.

80A.  We think it is possible that the names of every possible possibility of generation derived from Adam and Eve (a barely imaginable huge number) is written therein. This includes their possible names or otherwise some way to distinguish them. We think this is why it was 'written within and without' - every possible possibility is accounted for, and there are no more afterwards. This may seem excessive to some, but not to God Who is infinite, and created the entire universe with life on only one tiny speck in a corner of it, so to speak. In the end, to match with the book of life one must first exist (Apoc. 20:12) as the first criterion.

It is true that God knows how everything will unfold, down to the smallest detail, including who will be born, who is predestined, etc. Even so, there is free will to take into account. Also, we think that if the book of life is written like this it is not excessive so much as being thorough.

81.  That he is not the saviour is obvious to the elect at the time but is not so for the rest of the world. For people to choose to reject him, they have to intellectually assent to the truth rather than be swayed by signs and emotion. The elect are signed for this purpose.

82.  The Book Of Destiny, p. 50.

 

82A.  We think St. Thomas is closer to the truth in that the name 'becomes indelible through perseverance and the entrance into eternal glory'. We might add that the reverse happens depends on one's conduct in life. But if one has entered into eternal glory beforehand, then the book only confirms this; and vice versa: entrance into eternal glory confirms one's spot in the book. This is part of the reason why we said (footnote #80) that it is impossible to be in the Church in the state of grace and not in the book of life. This also tends towards our contention that while it is yet sealed, no changes are made to its contents.

 

83.  There is yet another angle to explore on this. One can lose salvation after being baptized but can recover his state of grace afterwards with repentance and the sacraments. It is to be wondered whether, after it is unsealed, the book of life may act in a similar fashion.

But before it is unsealed, one's baptismal status or state of soul has no reference at all to the book of life. That is one of the main points we are attempting to make clear.

But the predestined are written along with everyone else therein. God's foreknowledge of their perseverance is thus accounted for, and nothing is lost to them whether or not the book of life is ever unsealed or becomes 'active'.

 

84.  As this is not relevant to this inquiry we will pass over those details (concerning the letters to the seven churches), except to say that those who are reading them when the time comes will understand it.

85.  A complete look at the last two chapters of Apocalypse is beyond the scope of this examination. As this particular interpretation with which we have been proceeding has not before been attempted, there is no complete answer yet for the last two chapters. What is given is merely a beginning to be perhaps continued at a later time. The accounts of Mgsr. Haydock, Fr. Berry and Fr. Kramer aid in this regard.

 

86.  We will revisit this statement further on in this section. It concerns the center of this whole treatment.

 

87.  We have no idea what this may be like. As a starting point, we may safely conclude it will be more interesting than before. Some think that the 'new heaven' has to do with the sky and the atmosphere surrounding earth; and if it were the Millennium, this would more likely be true, as the rest of the universe will not also need to be renewed before the consummation.

As an added note: At first, misunderstanding Fr. Kramer's view, it was thought that he meant that literally a 'new heaven and a new earth' would appear, though it is apparent now that he is describing the changed state of the world after the antichrist in which there shall be no more 'mystery of iniquity' or an implacable enemy against the Church attempting to lead souls to hell. The victory is complete. Even so, we do not see chapter twenty-one describing the renewal in quite those terms.

 

87A.  In 'Addition to section III' (concerning more about the Gospel accounts), at footnote 40B, the 'abomination unto desolation' and the army which surrounds Jerusalem was discussed. There are no details given in Apoc. 20:8 other than that the army (Gog, and Magog) "encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city". This army was destroyed in verse nine ("And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them") but it is not said what they did while they were there. The only solution which is apparent is that the Gospel accounts of Sts. Matthew, Mark and Luke, concerning both Jerusalem and the 'abomination unto desolation' standing in the holy place, is not what is meant by 'the camp of the saints, and the beloved city' of Apoc. 20:8. This may refer to Portugal, and perhaps one other region; as the 'camp of the saints' and the 'beloved city' are not the same place, or in the same place (probably). The army "came up across the whole breadth of the earth" (Apoc. 20:8~Knox) so it may stretch all the way from Portugal to, say, Moscow (not continuously, but presumably in divisions of some sort). Roughly in between them is Jerusalem, which if the verse is taken literally, is overrun along with the holy place so that the 'abomination unto desolation' is set up there (Luke 21:24).

 

88.  Not discounting Fr. Kramer's conclusions, which were arrived at from a different direction. For now it might be said that The Book Of Destiny is a 'first timeline' interpretation of Apocalypse; though it arrived very late (1955).

 

89.  Ezechiel 2:9 and 3:1-3 has a book (or scroll) "written within and without: and there were written in it lamentations, and canticles, and woe". Thus it has a superficial similarity with the books mentioned in Apocalypse 5:1 and 10:2. These cannot be the same books or even related in any significant way, except two at least are concerned with prophecy (Ez. 2:9 and Apoc. 10:2). Ezechiel's book he had already eaten as instructed. This does prefigure St. John's action but not in its details; only insomuch as it concerns prophetic things. It shows that some prophecy is conditional. What is interesting is that Ezechiel's book contains details in itself which are found separate in the books of Apocalypse: That of being 'written within and without' and of being consumed. But the book of Apoc.10:2 cannot be the same as the book of Apoc. 5:1 as it is 'little' and it is 'open' (no mention of the size was made in Apoc. 5:1; thus this detail serves to differentiate between them). It is true that in the ordering of the Apocalypse chapters the 'little book open' appears after the seals have been opened, but this detail is not meant to confuse us. 

 

In any case, it does not follow that after the book of life is unsealed it is opened immediately (in Apoc. 20:12, it is open with the other books of each individual soul for the judgement). However, it does seem to be opened, or accessed, in Apoc. 13:8 and 17:8, in which those who 'adore the beast' are not found written in the book of life. This would suggest, as in Apoc. 3:5, that changes can be made to its contents before the Last Judgement of Apoc. 20:12.

 

It also tells us the extreme gravity with which the antichrist's presence is treated (he is not just another false pope!). To 'adore' him is to be erased from the book of life; it cannot be more serious than that. One cannot follow him out of fear, or expedience; that, too, will count as 'adoration':Tto act in such a way in the external forum will be treated the same as genuine intent; conversely, one who does not show such adoration externally (for whatever reason) but does so internally will also garner the same penalty.

 

To follow him out of fear or expedience will lead one to be constrained to accept the 'mark' of the beast and also the condemnation that entails: "And these were followed by a third angel, who cried aloud, Whoever worships the beast and his image, or wears the beast’s mark on forehead or hand, he too shall drink; but the wine he shall drink is God’s anger, etc" (Apoc. 14:9-10~Knox).

 

If one should fall in line with the antichrist but afterwards repent, is it possible to be restored to it ?

 

When the temple was closed, so that no one was able to enter, it may be said that no one can be saved then: "And the temple was filled with smoke from the majesty of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled" (Apoc. 15:8). This is the state of things after the martyrdom of chapter fourteen (see "Third Secret Martyrdom Vision..."). And since one of the four living creatures (!) had given the vials to the seven angels, it is doubtful that even the Holy Rosary could save anyone then, if one waited until past this point to repent: "And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden vials, full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever" (Apoc. 15:7). Nothing more can be added with any certainty.

89A.  Reconsidering this question, we are not sure. God is very thorough. If the book contains the names of every possible possibility then it will also contain the resulting descendants for alternate timelines. Following that logic, it would also contain a great many possible conceptions with combinations that could not be willed by God. Perhaps the cosmos itself provides a clue: Let us say that all of space represents every possible possibility of descent from Adam and Eve, regardless of whether or not it is desirable. Most of it is empty; but stars are clustered in galaxies; and galaxies are also gathered in clusters. These might represent in an analogous manner the various possible genealogies derived from various lineages descended from Adam and Eve which may be willed by God. 

(The various 'possible possibilities' cannot cross generations: For instance, the generations derived from 1,000 AD contain possible descendants only from across that generation; there are no combinations possible from that generation and 120 years before, and 120 years after. This stands to reason).

 

Then there are various possible timelines to consider. This narrows the number. In the end, as we have seen, there are only two; but within either of them are many possible variations. Their scope is limited. The omniscience of God does not allow for anything unexpected (to Him) and yet with free will there can be any number of variances.

The question is whether there are variances which might appear in the book of life but not in actuality. With God's omniscience, it is possible there are no such variances. However, if the first timeline was in ascendance, there certainly would be. So it might be possible in the second. However, it does not matter as any entry which is null does not result in any decision regarding the soul which might have been.

This raises the question of whether, possibly, the 'little book open' might represent the book of life after all. If it represents names which will never be born, and if the judgement of all previous generations will not thus be affected (because it is never unsealed), what purpose might it serve ? It would make sense for it to be consumed in that case. The only problem with this theory is that if it is unsealed, the first timeline cannot have come about for the 'little book open' to be consumed, as the point of the second timeline is that it is unsealed. It is as if circular (this peculiarity is the subject of footnote #116). It might be contained somehow in the Apocalypse which is itself consumed (or so we think) as the open book in chapter ten. That would account for it in that case. But as the first timeline did not come to pass, the question is academic; still it should be asked as a counterpoint to our own timeline. In fact the whole idea of the first timeline is as a counterpoint to the second. What might have happened (and seemingly was supposed to happen) sheds light on what did happen and which was hitherto shrouded until then.

Dogmas concerning the judgement. We are aware of the dogmas concerning the immediacy of the personal and eternal judgement of each soul upon death which cannot be changed. That is true...as long as the book of life was under seal. Our point is that the same Authority Who defined these dogmas also created the sealed book 'from the foundation of the world' which predates original sin and everything which came afterwards, including all defined dogma. As we have said, the book of life was as if it did not hitherto exist. If it was not sealed, in a way that implied its non-existence, that is, if it was open, then those dogmas would remain exactly the same. Our point is always that its unsealing makes a difference, otherwise there is no point in its being there. The Church was already there, as a kind of 'open book' version of the sealed book. So each personal judgement is 'immediate and eternal' unless (the great unless) the book of life is unsealed before the last and general judgement, in which the soul is reunited to the body to go to its eternal fate - which changes for the body if original sin is, as it were, 'unmade'. 

That last part is the most difficult as it has no ready explanation. But the thing is, the immediate judgement is made before the soul is reunited to the body. If the book of life factors in, what might that do ? That is what we have been trying to explain, as in this entirely unplanned footnote and its extension.

 

For those defined dogmas concerning the immediate and personal judgement we think 'the great unless' is the unstated part, implied with the existence of the book of life and active upon its unsealing. The unstated part may as well not be there (as it is not), even as the book of life is not, so long as it remains sealed. In other words, an unstated additional condition exists if it is stated to exist prior to the making of the original condition - even if it is unknown to exist at the time, along with its particulars. Even the secret of Fatima was not that hidden; the third part was known to exist when the first two parts were revealed (but before then, it was known only that there was a secret and nothing more); but with the book of life, the secret of its meaning was unknown even as its existence was unknown until Daniel, and then only really spoken of in Philippians (4:3) and in Apocalypse.

Is there an example which conveys this ? Perhaps it is from Eden: Adam and Eve were warned that they would die if they partook of the forbidden fruit; the devil deceived them, and they ate, and sinned; but what nobody knew (save God) at the time was that one day there would be a Redeemer to save them from the death; there was no point in mentioning that detail before they had sinned since the condition which required a Redeemer did not yet exist.

 

Seemingly circular logic. The 'hidden additional condition' in fact did exist even as Our Lord spoke the words upon which those particular dogmas are based. He could have added, 'so long as the book of life remains sealed', but that would defeat its purpose; but moreover, so long as the book remained sealed, it really was as though it did not exist, so there was no point in mentioning it. This is another 'circular' element (also discussed in footnote #116).

We think there is a connection between the papacy's being 'taken away' due to the devil's attempt to deceive the whole Church by substitution of the true pope for a false one, and the 'hidden additional condition' we have proposed. It seems as if the one enabled the other. As had been stated elsewhere, what the devil attempted paradoxically resulted in a kind of reversal. So those dogmas, defined by the papacy which, without this 'hidden additional condition', makes this interpretation of the book of life impossible, must not speak against this solution of the book of life (which unsealing was made possible by the papacy's existence in the first place). This seems like 'circular' logic again, which is why it is so difficult to explain, and why it is necessary to try it from different directions; so to attempt to sum up this paragraph: The same papacy which defined the dogmas which make this interpretation seemingly impossible is the same which made the unsealing of the book of life possible, by its existence as the papacy, and which had to be 'taken away' (2 Thess 2:7) in due time.

 

Or we can look at it from another direction: Nothing which happened afterward applies to the book of life, although it came before. But as it was sealed, nothing can apply to it. But the book can only be unsealed upon those conditions in which the devil tried to subvert the papacy and use it against the Church herself. In so doing, he subverted his own plan.

As there is no way of phrasing this which seems sufficient to express it, we will only say that this particular attack upon the papacy resulted in the unsealing of the book of life as a necessary consequence of the devil's attempt to use the papacy against itself and the Church.

The reversal is reflected in Apocalypse. But in Apocalypse itself we can see a reversal which reflects this new state of affairs: In chapter thirteen it is written that all of them that adored the beast was not written in the book of life (this necessarily implies that everyone who did not is written in the book of life). This is an exact mirror image of the Church, in which all of the saved are attached to the Church through the papacy. This is why it was not enough for the devil to install his antipapacy: No, he has to try to draw the whole world into it, as a reverse of what the victory of the Church would have meant for the world, in the first timeline only, before the antichrist: That all nations would become part of the Church. Otherwise, it happens after the antichrist, in the second timeline only.

Now it is a little clearer why absolutely nothing of this could be said before it was time. And Our Lady of Fatima did not say so either. The only example of a concept we have seen anywhere which conveys something like this idea is found here.

89B.  As for the particular criteria by which these comparisons may be made, any ideas one may have will be, at best, uncertain. And to try to define its exact parameters is folly. What we know for sure is in Apoc. 13:8, 17:8, 21:8).

90.  And perhaps the second beast of chapter thirteen will be an 'anti-John the Baptist'. His 'mark' of the beast is a kind of anti-baptism, one which formally takes one out of the book of life even as they are become (spiritually) dead into the world (rather than being 'dead to the world', that they may have life). At that point, it is merely a formality for all of them who already worship the antichrist; but for them that are more afraid than worshipful, it is at this point where they may also lose their place in the book of life.

 

90A.  If they were not, it means they were predestined for hell. As we have seen previously, what is the book for if those who are saved are confirmed by it ? At this point we ought to offer a 'book of life' perspective on sin and justice. Sin, by its nature, is an affront to the infinite dignity of God; the sin is not as great as He against whom the sin is made. This explains the fall of the fallen angels: They had knowledge at the beginning and no disadvantage as original sin. However, all of us after Adam and Eve are born without knowledge and with original sin - in essence a blank and stained slate in darkness. Our point is that the book of life justly balances this disadvantage, and we think St. Joseph (called 'the just') was born to participate in its unsealing, even as the Blessed Virgin was born to be Mother of the Redeemer, Whose Merits made the book of life possible and, moreover, has been opening the seals.

We do not intend, of course, to say that God's justice is unjust - when we mean to say is that, from the perspective of Heaven, in considering those who are to go to Heaven, the weight of sin is felt in full.

If the requirements for salvation seemed arduous to some (despite the sacraments and aids available) it was for our own good, so that this book may one day be unsealed. It is another paradox. Must it be added that it is preferred that the standards be high, but that due to weakness and ignorance from original sin it is understandable that many did not achieve it ?

It is to be expected that the antichrist will make many accusations of the Church being too harsh in the past. From that perspective, then perhaps he will ignore the book of life. It remains difficult to say one way or the other.

 

91.  Sr. Lucia to Fr. Fuentes, 1957.

92.  The subject is explored further in "Equality/Equalism: The Modern False God And False Religion". Basically whatever is deemed 'unequal' according to whatever standard is expedient at the time is 'an evil'. To change this is what they consider to be 'justice'.

93.  If the goal is to cause people to be 'blotted out' from the book of life, then it is the adoration of the antichrist which will do that for certain. What is hitherto not obvious is how the book of life being unsealed improves the chances for souls. In fact it is still not obvious.

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

95.  This part is debatable and we will have to see how it goes. Many who did not believe the truth will believe the antichrist because they will not anymore be able to see the contradiction (having trained in untruth); but afterwards the antichrist may actually re-establish the truth on many things; and people on both sides may believe him depending on internal things that no one can really predict. So this is another angle on which no further speculation is realistic.

95A.  The example of doubting Thomas is not quite what we mean; he doubted until he touched Christ's Wounds, and was then duly convinced it was indeed He; but what if one remained unconvinced after seeing Him Resurrected ? That is the 'greatest intellectual sin' which is equivalent to believing the antichrist is 'true pope and true Christ', as it were, together with all of the accompanying contradictions, in full view of the world.

96.  We think it is not by accident that The Lord Of The Rings is, per capita (year by year), compared to any other, the most widely known work of fiction in the history of the world (read, translated, printed). The well-known movies have also increased its reach. This is possibly so that this metaphor can be made so that many may understand what the unsealing of the book of life means, not only for themselves but also their forebears.