1.
For the former, Fr. Kramer believes this to be true of the book 'sealed
with seven seals'. For the latter, Haydock makes reference to them in
his commentary on chapter ten of Apocalypse.
2.
This did not happen immediately (at least until around 1850) as it
appeared there was a chance he would regain his throne though it would
be difficult; otherwise there would be another 'Great Ruler' but not
necessarily French, nor even a monarch (at least from the start). For
example, Fr. Laurence Ricci (d. 1775) speaks of a "valiant duke" who
will "arise from the ancient German house which was humiliated by the
French monarch"; later, Josefa von Bourg (d. 1807) speaks of "a
descendant of Constantine, Pepin, and St. Louis, who has been tried by a
long period of disappointment to come from exile to rule over Europe"
(from Prophecy For Today, Fr. Edward Connor, 1956, pp.31-38). This will be explored further as we progress.
3. The 'Three Days' Darkness', which is meant to defeat the enemies of the Church at a time of intense crisis, is
considered by some a doubtful prophecy although it appears several
times; it is related to the 'heavenly scourge' which is possibly the
same thing. It will be treated as genuine for the purposes of this
section. All the more so since it is moot, as we will see, and will
never be fulfilled along with the chapter eleven timeline.
4. An indirect way to establish the latest point at which the holy monarch may appear is the 1903 election of the freemason Rampolla. His
election was vetoed by the 'heir legatee' of the Holy Roman Empire,
using an ancient privilege of the Holy Roman Emperors which was disused
for centuries but was still 'on the books', so to speak. St. Pius X
abrogated this privilege after his election, fearing that it may be
abused by the enemies of the Church at a later time.
5.
This is one example of how things specific to one timeline are not to
be found in another; and is why unless they are agreeable to any timeline such details are not to be found in the Gospel accounts at all. It was said any
timeline because, theoretically speaking, there may be any number of
possible variations; and there is also Our Lord's words to consider
about the days which signify His Second Coming: "So you also when you
shall see these things come to pass, know ye that it is very nigh, even
at the doors" (Mark 13:29). The question here is whether all
these things must arrive at within the same timeframe, or whether most
of these may come beforehand, during the time of the beast, and the
remainder to come at the real, actual end (Apoc. 20:7-10). For instance,
when Jerusalem is "compassed about with an army" (Luke 21:20) this is a
definite sign for the end; but does "Jerusalem" here mean the actual
city or does it stand for the city of the relocated Papacy* at the real,
actual end (Apoc. 20:7-10) ? For at that time, after the 'period of
peace' is ended, the holy city is under attack: the armies of the world
"came upon the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp of the
saints, and the beloved city". It is not said whether the city was
despoiled then, but "there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them". So presumably it had happened, and Heaven responded.**
The answer to whether all these
things must arrive within the same timeframe is given in Matt. 24:34:
"Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these
things be done". This means that within a single generation, from the
ending of the period of peace until there "shall appear the sign of the
Son of man in heaven" (Matt. 24:30), all of these things will come
about. So the Gospel accounts of the end, of Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke
21, has nothing to do with our time, of Apocalypse chapter thirteen.
* The Papacy is relocated after the destruction of Rome as "Great Babylon" in Apocalypse chapter eighteen.
** It is not certain
that it is despoiled in the second timeline ending. It is so in the first
(Apoc. 11:1-2); but chapter twenty seems to indicate that it might be
prevented.
6. The ending in chapter eleven is rather abrupt.
7.
In all three Gospel accounts 'wars and rumour of wars' are spoken about
as though it were a new thing (Matt. 24:6, Mark 13:7, Luke 21:9). This can
only happen if there were a significant period of peace beforehand. It
does not make sense otherwise to state what is always (normally)
happening in the world. We will return to this point.
8.
Either way the locus of the persecution, spiritual or physical, which precedes the period of
peace is the papacy. It is
overcoming this which gives victory to the Church to bring about the
period of peace which precedes the Second Coming. In both timelines the
papacy is 'taken away' to precede the coming of antichrist. We have seen
how it happens in one; in the other timeline it is likely that the next
papal election is prevented by an attack upon the cardinals. In
Apocalypse chapter eleven the 'holy city' is overrun (verse 2): "But the
court which is without the temple, cast out and measure it not: because
it is given unto the Gentiles. And the holy city they shall tread under
foot, two and forty months:".
9.
The persecutions of the Church are not always external and physical.
They may consist of heretics, faithless prelates, and infiltrators who
are wolves in sheep's clothing; and whom, it is strange, find it so important to
lead people away from the Faith when it really does not concern them,
if they do not have it. This is part of the 'mystery of iniquity'.
10.
St. Paul said that the papacy would be "removed from the enemy's path"
(2 Thess. 2:7~Knox). It must happen in any case; in this case, the
'period of peace' would have come first.
11.
This is not to be as a result of nuclear war, but of the actions of the
antichrist and the calamities which follow the trumpets and the vials. Otherwise chapter thirteen could not be fulfilled.
12.
It is possible that, until Sr. Lucia wrote it, the devil did not know
it either. His minions (the freemasons in Portugal at the time) already
tried to scare the secret out of the seers, resulting in their absence
from the August 13 apparition (they would subsequently see Her on August
19), but their plan was without success. It is not confirmed, but an idea
was suggested that the devil and his demons are blind when it comes to
eavesdropping on holy conversations, such as those between Our Lady of
Fatima and Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta. But it seems they are able to
read these things if they are written down. This is not confirmed.
13. Really, only
for the second timeline, but this was not supposed to be in any way
obvious. That would possibly give away the purpose behind the
Apocalypse.
14. Various Catholic prophecies speak of the reign of antichrist relatively close to the Second Coming.
15.
At this time in the world, there is no paganism. All the false
religions had disappeared whether through conversion or death in the
years of Apocalypse chapters 13-19. So Christ's words here are for all,
since all were presumably Christian at least in name during the one thousand years; at its end, not so much. But we do not know how everything will look like then.
16. See "Siri Thesis: Sedevacante or 'Sederomota' ?". How it is to be restored is unknown.
17.
And yet Our Lord said of that time that "there will rise up false
Christs and false prophets, and they shall shew signs and wonders, to
seduce (if it were possible) even the elect" (Mark 13:22). This implies
that it should not be possible to deceive the elect, all the more so as
they were living as the 'first resurrection' of Apocalypse chapter
twenty. It also implies that the elect might not be there to help dispel
the illusion.
17A. It was figured that 'the holy place' is in 'the holy city' and thus that St. Luke's use of the word 'desolation' (in the Douay-Rheims translation) correlated with the appearance of the 'abomination unto desolation' in the holy city. But this is not necessarily the case. The Knox translation gives it as: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, be sure that the time has come when she will be laid waste". The term 'abomination of desolation' is the same in both translations in Mark 13:14.
18.
In the first timeline, which is the concern of all Catholic prophecy
before Fatima, Enoch and Eli is spoken of various times and in parallel
with Apocalypse chapter eleven. If they return in the second
timeline it is impossible to say what exactly they will be doing, unless
it happens to parallel the first timeline (Apoc. 11); but this ought
not to be so, because what is common to both timelines at the end should
be in the Gospel accounts.
19.
This seems to be the simplest solution. During the period of peace, the
world is become Catholic, at least in the main; thus, at the end, the
Gospel does not need to be preached, but the 'Gospel of the kingdom' may
literally mean the news that the Second Coming is at hand. In this
context it is reasonable to surmise that the devil will try to mislead
many by 'false Christs' who claim to be Him already returned, and
proclaiming a false kingdom come.
20. How this applies to Fatima: Fr. Dhanis' modernist critique of Fatima is itself ably critiqued by the author of The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. I.
See especially, in part two, "The Modernist Solution Of Father Dhanis"
(p. 269) and "The Solution Of The Historical Critique" (p. 337). The
thing is, the thesis that Fr. Dhanis applies to Fatima's Lucia dos Santos really applies to
Melanie of La Salette: That the original secret from Our Lady was
changed and added thereunto so that what we were given was not the
faithful and accurate transmission of Her words. His conclusion, not
stated but clearly implied, was that nothing remains of Fatima which is
reliable after 1917. It is not to be wondered that Fr. Dhanis, being a
modernist, would take this line; his purpose was not to provide an
honest criticism but to oppose Our Lady's message as being "not in line
with modern sensibilities". It so happens that Melanie of La Salette unwittingly provided him a template with which to do it.
21.
The irony of Fr. Dhanis' attack on Fatima by applying Melanie's
failings to Sr. Lucia is that it also works in reverse: We can see more
easily which parts of the 1879 text was influenced by what and also to
show the two timelines by the presence of both in the text, which contrasts with any valid prophecy.
22.
At Quito, Our Lord appeared to be speaking of times when priests lose their fervor
in general but of the end-times in particular. He did not speak of a
false council which might have brought this about, though He did say:
"Lacking a Prelate and Father to guide them with paternal love,
gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their
spirit, placing their souls in great danger". This implies that the
Church might be in an extended interregnum at the time. It might be that
for the time, another Pope cannot be elected, but not for the same
reasons as the extant timeline since 1958.
23. This part comes after the period of peace: "[Among]
God’s ministers, and the Spouses of Jesus-Christ, there will be some
who will go astray, and that will be the most terrible". This would be during antichrist's reign. Since the
antichrist comes after the period of peace, and his reign is measured by
3.5 years, not twice 3.5 years, Apocalypse chapter twelve cannot
represent the apostasy of the timeline of chapter eleven. It is
completely different. Melanie's reference is bewildering.
23A.
For instance, in timeline one it may be the great monarch and the holy
pope OR just the holy pope. In timeline two it can only be the holy
pope.
24. The Three Days' Darkness has been called doubtful by some but as it appears on a few
more occasions it is well worth looking into, and we will do so.
25A.
Or perhaps, after the reign of the last pope according to the prophecy
of Malachy, the cardinals were in conclave, but never got as far as
electing a successor.
26. The measure is of the number of faithful who keep the faith; but as there is no pope they are not measured by their adherence to the pope but by keeping the faith unaltered, as it was up until then.
26A. The question arises as to why she was shown these visions but not told to write them down at the time. It is probable that if the timeline had continued to unfold along the lines of La Salette prophecy she would have wrote about them later, but in that case she would relay it accurately and not in the form of the 1879 text. She might even have done so in the alternate 1879.
26B. Depends on whether their Lord is Our Lord or St. Peter. If they speak for the Church at this time when there is no pope but instead the antichrist then it may well be the latter. The fact that it cannot easily be said which tells us that it is meant to conceal a truth which would become apparent at the time; but it is not known why; unless it was necessary as part of the 'secret' of Apocalypse (see 'Part Three').
[* Nov.22/25 edit: Their Lord is the last pope, 'Petrus Romanus', who was 'taken out of the way' according to the first timeline scenario. Then the great city, 'called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt', could be anywhere.]
26C. Why would the elect not be named in both chapter 11 and chapter 13 unless, again, it was necessary as part of the 'secret' of Apocalypse (see 'Part Three').
26D. 'Mitigated' might be Our Lord's meaning for the second timeline. In the first timeline, with the victory of the Church, the
time itself was shortened; but in ours although the time is not
shortened the tribulation as such has not yet happened. The spiritual
punishment may be said to have been mitigated with the papacy being
"taken away". Although it may seem strange to put it that way, the fact
is no one can be faulted for not following the papacy by that fact. How
far this may 'mitigate' the spiritual chastisement (spoken of by Sr.
Lucia in 1957) is difficult to discern. But for certain it does
'shorten' its scope.
27.
In the context of the first timeline, it seems easier to discern why Our
Lord might shorten the days "for the sake of the elect which he hath
chosen" (Mark 13:20). It is so that they can be chosen. For the second, it might well be due to the fact
that 'the camp of the saints, and the beloved city' is surrounded by the
armies of God, and Magog. But it is impossible to be more precise on
this point.
28.
This is in Apoc. 10:6. "That time shall be no longer". Paradoxically,
the only way to know about the text for certain is if it was rendered
null. This also tells us that it is useless to believe anyone who says
he knows its contents.
29. This 'flipping of the script' will be treated in "Flipping The Script".
30. Initially, this source was used but several points were taken from here and here and here. Nothing was found about this prophecy in Fr. O'Connor's Prophecy For Today nor Yves Dupont's The Coming Chastisement. One
source does not mention the words which apply to Pius IX; another omits
the passages which appear to apply to Vatican '2'. In attempting to
reconcile this prophecy with the two timelines it is necessary to have
access to all of Our Lady's words. At least one of those gave them in
chronological order, which is useful, though not complete it seems.
31.
Up until this point, the first attempt was made to reconcile Good
Success with the two timelines. Now a second attempt is made, using
additional references. It is all retained for completeness.
32. Loosely speaking, this might mean 'liberty' for heresy, 'equality' for blasphemy, and 'fraternity' for impurity.
33.
Also nothing was said, as far as can be ascertained, about all of these
things beginning in the mid-20th century. One source has said that Our
Lady "pointed to shortly after the mid-20th century as a crucial point
in the crisis". It would behoove commentators not to change dates to fit
this prophecy into what they think is its timeline. There appears to be
no interruption in the timeline as given by Our Lady at Quito.
33A.
It still happened in places, and is still happening; but today it is
more of a persecution of anybody who is against global communism. It
seems to have become so over time.
33B.
Given the turmoils which occurred in the 19th century it is difficult
to say for sure. But as we proceed, we will see that the advancing
corruption did not quite happen in the Church so much as around Her. But to examine this in exacting detail is beyond the scope of this site.
34.
Russia rejected not only the pope at the time of the schism but the
papal primacy itself. By embracing antipopes (seen as oxymoronic
'heretical popes' and confused with historical 'bad popes') over
against, and
contradictory to, the dogma of the faith, one tacitly rejects the papacy
by disregarding the binding nature of the dogmas which were defined by
all previous popes. At the same time, many people think they are being
faithful to the papacy. In the end, if the dogmas do not matter, neither
does the papacy.
BY
'accepting a false pope as true' it is meant after his heresy and
unworthiness of the papacy has become manifest; at the time of
Roncalli's appearance on Oct. 28, 1958, it was not possible to make the
distinction. This is explored further in Part Three. But the idea is that to follow the antipapacy right to the end leads to the antichrist in particular (and not just his precursors) without fail.
35.
It follows then, that "what withholdeth" the appearance of the
antichrist, who "now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the
way", is not actually taken away at that time, either timeline, in fact. That is fulfilled with Apoc. 12:5 in the second timeline only.
36. The position of Kaiser was derived from traditions belonging to the Holy Roman Empire.
37.
It has been said that the Kaiser had a hand in this, wishing to take
Russia out of the war so that all resources can be diverted to the
Western Front.
38. This article
which discusses the omniscience and foresight of God is very good in
order to understand this. What may be difficult for people to grasp is
why another timeline was posited if only one of them was intended all
along. The rest of this section is intended to try to answer this
question. The short answer is for the devil to deceive himself trying to
deceive us, and without Heaven lying to us, or him. It is to be
remembered that prophecy is conditional (outside of Scripture)
and may become obsolete when the conditions required for its fulfillment
had changed. The threshold difference required for such a change can
only be speculated upon.
As to whether each timeline was known
to God beforehand and whether the one which came about actually would
come about, this excerpt from the above referenced article tells us how:
"An argument for God’s knowing future free human actions, then, can be put succinctly in the following format:
1. God is omniscient.
2. An omniscient being knows all truths.
3. Therefore God knows all truths.
4. There are truths about future contingent events (e.g., future free human actions).
5. Therefore, God knows all truths about future contingent events."
1. God is omniscient.
2. An omniscient being knows all truths.
3. Therefore God knows all truths.
4. There are truths about future contingent events (e.g., future free human actions).
5. Therefore, God knows all truths about future contingent events."
No comments:
Post a Comment
--