Footnotes - Two Timelines (Part Two): Two Thousand Years Of Catholic Prophecy

38A.  The computer analogy is really the only way to illustrate this. It is perhaps Providential, then, that computers exist today with which to make it.

 

39.  The common thing about these prophecies is that, due to sin, a crisis must come at some point. That many prophecies are, in their specifics, no longer applicable (e.g. the great monarch) does not render their common theme inapplicable as well. Throughout the ages they kept many members of the Church focused on the last days lest by the passage of centuries since Our Lord's eschatological discourse they might lose sight of it. Also the devil was paying attention to these as well, and there is a purpose for that too.

40.  This began as a footnote but required its own section. It is an addition to section III (Looking At The Big Picture With The Gospel Accounts, in Part One). Comparing how the eschatological discourse may apply to either timeline as the end of time unfolds.

41.  Almost certainly it might be interpreted that way. In Apocalypse we read that "in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound the trumpet, the mystery of God shall be finished, as he hath declared by his servants the prophets" (Apoc. 10:7). The seventh angel sounds the trumpet in Apoc. 11:15. If the 'mystery of God' be finished then, there is no reason to believe there is to be another thousand years; but it would be the time near to the Parousia.

42.  As for the second world war, the reason why the Soviet Union had so many armies positioned westward is because they were planning to invade Europe and bring communism all the way to Portugal. It is also the reason why Germany managed a series of overwhelming victories against them - the Red armies were not positioned for defense. Providentially, then, Germany struck first. This is in spite of the narrative which insists that the war was 'fought for freedom' by the Allies.

42A.  This is not a condemnation of those weaker souls. Who knows how one shall stand, unless he were put to the test ? But it is to be observed that these revolutions cannot succeed without a significant number of allies within the nation; otherwise to bring about the same results it would have to be through invasion.

43.  Some people think that the 'conversion of Russia' (due to its consecration) means 'conversion from an aggressive enemy' to a kind of peace. All that can be said for this perspective is the silence of Sr. Lucia regarding Pius XII's 1952 consecration when she spoke to Fr. Fuentes in 1957.

44.  The thing about this comet is that, if it was always going to happen, it would have by the mid-20th century. This is not an event which can be interpreted one way or another according to the timeline. For instance, the sixth seal event might be caused by a comet, but it will possess a very different meaning whether or not Garabandal (which is not of Heaven) and its other effects are attached to it. Further, the comet is not mentioned explicitly in most other such prophecies, approved by the Church, of which we are aware. But one of the differences between this and others is the manner in which the throne of France is regained: St. Hildegard does not explicitly say that the great monarch goes forth to defeat the enemies of the Church but that 'peace will return when the white flower' regains the throne. This supposes that the throne was well and truly lost at some point (as per the revolution of 1789); and the circumstances for gaining the victory of the Church without the great monarch seems always to be fraught with a great many more difficulties and tribulations. But given the timeframe of when this prophecy was given, it must be supposed that he is there nonetheless, and regains his throne in full when the victory is achieved.

 

It is curious that, at this early point, there is mention of difficulty for the great monarch. This prophecy is an outlier like Our Lady of Good Success and does not fit quite in the order of 'progression' as has been posited. They are examples, perhaps, of looking ahead with a view to events progressing more badly than many of the other prophecies would indicate. But generally speaking, in earlier prophecies the great monarch is simply there, and it is in later prophecies that it appears more or less that he has to 'regain the throne'. For example, Abbot "Merlin" Joachim (d.1202) relates: "A temporal throne becoming vacant, the Pope shall place on it this king whose assistance he shall ask, etc"; and this does not connote the need for the throne to be regained

One more point of concurrence to be made: Werdin d'Otrante indicated that the pope would cross the sea on a concurrence of feasts which occurred last in 1943; Nostradamus indicated something similar, only that the war would end in that year (Prophecy For Today, pp. 13-14). St. Hildegard here spoke of the passing of a great comet which must have come beforehand. Could this possibly be related to the night illlumined by an unknown light of 1938 announced by Our Lady of Fatima to signal the imminent second and greater war ? Was it the comet at an angle of approach which is not normally visible ? And if so, what changed its approach so that it would have only the effect of a sign and not the much more deleterious consequence of St. Hildegard's vision ?

45.  It was said that Pius IX has told one of his advisors, concerning the Secret of La Salette, that (paraphrase) "It is good that we were warned; otherwise we would have found ourselves at an impasse, from which escape would be impossible". If this were true, then La Salette is the only other prophecy which is not strictly linear, but it remains different from Fatima in that it would be a divergence within the same timeline but not branching to another. However, this is assuming that the above anecdote is true, and also that the apparent 1851 version of La Salette is not, because there does not seem to be anything within it which would indicate a particular choice the pope had to make.

It is noted that we are told only what is needed for our salvation. The two timelines and the unsealing of the book of life were not needed to be known for our salvation, although as we are seeing the answers to that mystery was indeed present from Apostolic times.

46.  We do not recall the dates of this address or addresses, but one of them might have been to the U.N. As these quotes are generally well known, it is assumed the reader is probably also familiar with them.

46A.  There should be only one 'period of peace' accompanying the triumph of the Church. There is one either way in Fatima; these variables cannot be multiplied.

47.  There may be a particular reason for the number of these apparitions in the 19th century, as we will see in Part Three.

48.  It is certainly coming about in a different way in the second timeline. Many of the world will follow the beast, but in the end the beast and his allies will be destroyed at the battle of Apocalypse chapter nineteen. The rest of the world must repent and turn to Mary. But it is not possible to describe in any detail at this time how all this may come about.

Fr. Kramer in The Book Of Destiny has an interesting perspective about the events of chapter nineteen, but we are not moving too far ahead in this timeline; we are only attempting to account for the other one.

 

49.  There is a point to why the whole thing is not simply straightforward as it would be if the Apocalypse was never written. That point is the Book of Life, of which there is more to say in Part Three

 

49A.  This part is from Prophecy For Today, p.25.

50.  As late as the 18th century Bernhardt Rembordt (full text here) describes a deliverance by means of the great monarch, or allies of the same, without having to resort to a Divine intervention in which much of the world would perish. He prophesied a terrible battle in which "both men and women will fight for their Faith". At the last, "a foreign King will appear and win a victory for the cause of the righteous". Afterwards, since France at that time is divided (hence no great monarch from there), the German Empire chooses "a simple man as the Emperor", who rules for a short time; then his successor "will be the man for whom the world has longed". The great monarch did not absolutely have to come from France; but if he could not then the alternative, in which there is a three days' darkness to succor the victory, is very close. This scenario appears to be as close as possible to the divide between those alternative crisis points in the first timeline.

51.  Although his primary goal from thence was to subvert the Church from within, he was also prepared to attempt another frontal assault another way: using Russia as the Soviet Union. We think that he did not know the secret of Fatima because it had not yet been committed to paper (the fallen angels are, we believe, blind to those not under their sway). Thus, he might not have known that the second world war was prophesied until after it had already begun; that is to say, he probably did not know it had been prophesied. We note that the idea of "two world wars" appeared nowhere in prophecy before.

Until the pre-emptive strike by Germany in 1941* and then Japan later that year, the conflict had been regional. It is also in 1941 that the secret of Fatima was written down for the first time and submitted to Pius XII. The invasion of the Soviet Union prevented a first strike by the Red Army (for they were assembling as if for war on the Eastern front) which might have been an occasion for the three days' darkness to stop them - but that was meant to be impossible once Fatima was established as the prophetic timeline (either way) to be fulfilled.

 

* We are well aware of everything that has been said regarding that war. But this is our conclusion nonetheless, and without regard to any other detail.

 

One can go back and forth for a long while with what-if speculations. This is assuming the devil did not know the secret of Fatima. The timing of events may shed some light. At the apparition of Tuy, Spain in 1929, Our Lady told Sr. Lucia: "The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means". She soon "rendered an account of this" to her confessor, who ordered her to "write down what Our Lord willed to be done" (so this was written down immediately). Much later, in the 1950's Dr. Bella Dodd testified to the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee that in the 1930's Stalin had sent a large number of infiltrators to penetrate the seminaries and gain rank in the hierarchy. We see now what the devil was attempting, but did he do this in response to Tuy or was Tuy in response to his plan ? It is, after all, in response to the subversion of Russia that Our Lady came to Fatima.

51A. This is not to say that everyone was 'outside of the Church' or has lost the Faith immediately by dint of having an unknown false pope foisted upon them. This is why the papacy was 'taken out of the way', as St. Paul tells us in Thessalonians, so that the requirement to adhere to the papacy was also taken away. This was unknown on both fronts (the false pope and the taking away) so it is just. It is nevertheless true that, as Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes in 1957: "the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them".

52.  Perhaps the reason why Bl. Emmerich did not specify an antipope is (by inspiration perhaps) to avoid confusion with the 'man of sin' of 2 Thessalonians ch. 2. Later on she does mention the beast of Apocalypse; but again, not in connection with an antipope or Thessalonians.

 

52A.  In a similar vein (of how something may be interpreted according to either timeline) it should be stressed again that the Gospel accounts of the last days are structured so as to be true whether or not the antichrist is actually present at that time. All the details Our Lord has given will come to pass either way, so that, whether or not the antichrist is there at that time, we may correctly conclude when it is time to keep watch for the Parousia.

53.  This can of course be debated. For instance, there was no Catholic Emperor during the first three centuries and there is no great monarch in the last two centuries according to prophecy. In a sense, the great monarch represents the defender of Christendom as an established civilization whereas the pope is there from the first few converts until the spiritual end of Christendom. The purview of the great monarch is within the purview of the papacy.

53A.  There is something odd to consider in all this: On the one hand, if the members of the Church had kept the Faith sufficiently, there is no reason the great monarch should not come; but if they had been largely overcome by the depredations of the 'mystery of iniquity', then the three days' darkness might come instead; but then in our timeline we see that neither the great monarch nor the three days' darkness came (and no ultimate crisis either of the sort we have seen). This is probably due to the effects of the Marian apparitions of the 19th century in reviving the Faith after the great monarch had been turned aside by the revolution of 1789. The point is that the victory of the Church seems balanced against the ultimate crisis which threatens her in this world in a way that seems to carefully steer events towards the second timeline. This can only be seen in hindsight as it is impossible to discern this beforehand. The reason for this will become apparent in Part Three.

53B.  The first resurrection is made possible, or rather signified, by Our Lord's words that 'this generation shall not pass' (which had seen the end of the period of peace) until all the signs given in the eschatological discourse have come about. It is also made possible, in a sense, by the depths of the devil's deception (Apoc. 2:24) in that the response by Heaven is become greater; it is to be wondered, then, whether the beast 'which shall come up out of the bottomless pit' is permitted by Heaven as a way of opening the way for the first resurrection.

There is a certain trade-off which has been operating for a long time. God can very easily override any of the devil's plans at any moment before they are even made but that would not be fair. The ultimate example is, as we have seen, allowing the devil to succeed in infiltrating the papacy so that the papacy can be 'taken out of the way'; then, as we have seen in Apocalypse chapter twelve, the woman escaped his trap, so that "the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Apoc. 12:17).

The woman escaped the trap precisely because the papacy was 'taken out of the way'. In a sense it is mathematical, like a zero-sum equation. It is not known how else to express this.

 

54.  It is not remembered where this quote came from, but Pius IX apparently said once (paraphrase), "It is good that we were forewarned; otherwise we would have found ourselves at an impasse, from which escape was impossible". This was referenced in footnote #45 as well. He might have been speaking of the visions of Emmerich, if not La Salette, which seems more probable. It might be that this schism is how the timeline proceeds if the great monarch still can intervene; if not, then it may begin with the 1903 election of a false pope. 

At any rate, Pius IX was astute enough to quickly close the Council, to be continued at a later time, and remain in Rome. So it was not possible for the masonic sects to force him to flee, and perhaps catch the majority of the hierarchy in Rome, and declare him dead (even if he is only missing) and so cause the election of an anti-pope. At this point, the speculations are becoming layered, and so it is not possible to proceed further along this line.

55.  Spiritually, it has been done already, when the papacy was 'taken up to God' in Apoc. 12:5 (which here means the office moreso than the individual, as there was not another after him) and 'removed from the enemy's path' (2 Thess. 2:7~Knox).

56.  Fatima seems to be the only prophecy to indicate communism, if not by name, then by its operational base from 1917 - Russia. It is easy enough to understand why, since the devil would simply choose another name for his leading ideology (to confound prophecy and cause it to be made false). Otherwise, freemasonry is indicated. The former chosen (in name only now) are understood to be an influence by default since the beginning.

57.  One particular detail to note is the description for Pius VII (1800-23): "Aquila Rapax", 'the Rapacious Eagle'. Fr. O'Connor notes that "since this Pope was the most gentle and dove-like of men the inscription has presented difficulties which some have tried to circumvent by applying the prophecy to Napoleon at whose hands Pius suffered so much". It would seem that Napoleon overshadowed Pius VII at the time to the effect that St. Malachy's vision resulted in that description.

 

The description of Benedict XV likewise is more descriptive of the times in which he reigned than the man himself: Benedict XV (1914-22) was "Religio Depopulata" ('Religion Depopulated').

 

58.  'The Shepherd and the Sailor' might have been Siri, though others think that Roncalli fits the description better as he was Patriarch of Venice and expressed a desire to travel. Roncalli might also have been aware of this prophecy. The details that pertain to Siri are: He was the Archbishop of Genoa, the maritime city which was his life-long home, where he was born the son of a dockworker  (Il Lavoro, Genoa, Italy, May 3, 1989, p. 4).

59.  This is not to fault him with anything. It is simply that he could do nothing about it; the period of peace had run its course, enthusiasm had waned, and the time had come when the papacy would be taken out of the way for the coming of antichrist and the last days before the Second Coming.

60.  The devil must have been aware of the words of Our Lady of Good Success, which presents seemingly a worse crisis than the earlier great monarch prophecies, though it would not be more generally known until the 20th century (or after the worse crisis should already have begun). Before then, there was a work published in 1790 by Fr. Manuel Sousa Pereira which was based on Mother Mariana's own autobiography and that is all. Whether or not this had any effect on the devil's machinations is open to debate. It should be noted again that Our Lady of Fatima did not refer to "Communism" but "Russia's errors", and that Russia's first error was the rejection of Papal Primacy.

 

One has to be aware that the devil is not above reading the plan and preparing counters for it. In fact, that was counted on, it seems. If it is difficult to imagine this going on in the spiritual realm it is understandable.

 

61.  If he is not martyred, then at least the conclave to elect his successor is overrun: This might be the beginning of the 'wars, and rumour of wars' which the faithful might then hear about, and about the time when the holy city is "tread underfoot two and forty months" (Apoc. 11:2).

62.  Again, at this time the 'false Christs' would be appearing to deceive the faithful one way, while the antichrist deceives another way those who at that time have become lukewarm and love not the truth; those who have lost their fervour and say in their hearts, "My lord is long in coming," (Matt. 24:48~Knox).

63.  He also speaks of "John XXIII" appearing twice on the list: No. 50, 'Stag of the Siren', and No. 107, 'the Shepherd and the Sailor'. They were both antipopes; but he was not aware of this.

 

64.  The actual list of the Monk of Padua is not available to us at this time.

65.  If the divergence in names began with Benedict XV, would a divergence in the person who might take the name begin earlier ? As the crisis was supposed to begin in the early 20th century (as prophecy to indicates taken as a whole), it is difficult to imagine that it would begin with Guiseppe Sarto as Pius X, unless the crisis began after him, or unless his reign was cut short. However, after this point it is pure speculation, and one can go no further.

Addition To Section III (Two Timelines Part One): Looking At The Big Picture With The Gospel Accounts

This began as a footnote but is its own section now. It has its own footnotes at the end.

 

40.  Fr. O'Connor comments (about the gospel being preached in the whole world first): 'St. Augustine points out (Ep. 199, n. 48) that this does not mean that all men will come into the Church, but simply that the gospel shall have been preached to all nations and all men given the opportunity to embrace it. He also comments, "What does the phrase 'then it will come' mean except that it will not come before that time. How long after that time it will come, we do not know. The only thing we know for certain is that it will not come sooner" (Ep. 197, n. 4). St. Augustine therefore considers the universal preaching of the gospel a very remote sign of the world’s end'.

 

This observation works for the second (chapter thirteen) timeline in particular, as there is a definite and significant period of peace before the end. In fact, it applies to both periods since the victory of the Church necessarily implies that the gospel will be preached to all nations and without hindrance. However, there is a difficulty to be considered: Christ said that this generation 'shall not pass' until all these signs have occurred. What, then, of the gospel having been 'preached to all nations', followed by a thousand years of peace ? This cannot of course be contained in one generation.

There are a couple of possible solutions: First, the elect are alive during the whole time (as the 'first resurrection', Apoc. 20:4-6);[40A] and even before their time, the gospel had been preached to all nations during the reign of Pius XII (this also means that for every subsequent generation this requirement is already filled and cannot be undone). So, with the elect, that generation had not 'passed away until all things are fulfilled'.

(But after the main part of the Apocalypse, from chapters thirteen to nineteen, the gospel may well have to be preached again to all nations, since the Faith is all but disappeared from the world at that time. The elect will presumably do this {how the Church is to be re-constituted is to be seen when the time comes}. Thus might begin the millennium of the Church victorious in the world, but unlike the first timeline, the crisis was far worse and so the victory afterwards is that much greater, as is the length of the period of peace.)

 

The second solution is like St. Augustine's: That once all nations had heard the gospel, the end of time (beginning with the antichrist) may come at any time afterwards, but not before. This is the solution for the first timeline specifically.

The third solution combines St. Augustine's and the specific words recorded by the three evangelists who had recorded the eschatological discourse. St. Matthew writes: "And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come" (Matt. 24:14). St. Mark writes: "And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached" (Mark 13:10). St. Luke does not include this line at all. And all three of them almost identically relate that 'this generation shall not pass until all these things are done' and that 'Heaven and earth shall pass' but not His Word.

 

St. Matthew seems to indicate that 'the consummation' encompasses the whole time from the end of the period of peace until the Second Coming proper. Consider the epoch of the period of peace as when 'the gospel is preached to all nations' for in that time the Church has no hindrance. St. Mark's account does not contradict this. St. Luke does not say. But all three agree that, at the beginning of the very end, there shall be news of 'wars and seditions' as if this phenomenon is new to this generation.

 

 

But this solution is the most likely:

 

It should be added that 'unto all nations the gospel must first be preached' (Mark 13:10) can itself be taken as a veiled announcement of the period of peace following the Church's triumph, which is necessarily implied in all Catholic prophecy afterward, so that whether it is for approximately forty years or one thousand, either way the generation which saw the end of the period of peace will also live to see the Second Coming. This is not contradicted by St. Matt. 24:14, if what he meant by 'the consummation' is the whole time beginning with the ending of the period of peace. In other words, if what he meant is something like "...but before all this begins to happen" (the Gospel had to be preached to all nations, without hindrance as per the period of peace following the victory of the Church) then the first line of each of the Gospel accounts falls into place as announcing the end of the epoch of peace and the return of war and strife.

 

 

But what is the context of this, the 'gospel of the kingdom' ? Is it the same for both timelines, or does it have more than one meaning ?

 

The disciples went with Our Lord to the temple, and He announced to them, "These things which you see, the days will come in which there shall not be left a stone upon a stone that shall not be thrown down" (Luke 21:6). He was speaking of the end of the world, and not only the destruction of the temple. The rest of His discourse bears this out.

 

Our Lord was asked by His disciples, "Master, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when they shall begin to come to pass ?" (Luke 21:7). Or: "Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world?" (Matt. 24:3). Or: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall begin to be fulfilled?" (Mark 13:4). 

After the hint about the period of peace having come to an end (and there are reasons why it was hinted and not spelled out), Our Lord gave what seems to be another proximate sign for the beginning of the end:

In St. Mark's account, Our Lord says that "many will come in my name, saying, I am he; and they shall deceive many". St. Luke records His words as: "Take heed you be not seduced; for many will come in my name, saying, I am he; and the time is at hand: go ye not therefore after them".

St. Matthew adds: "And he shall send his angels with a trumpet, and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them" (Matt.24:31).

 

As for when the elect are gathered together by the angels, it would seem to be right at the end, so close to the Second Coming itself that Our Lord spoke of it afterward (Matt. 24:29-31 and Mark 13:26-27). We will see a possible reason for this (involving 'Gog, and Magog' of Apoc. 20:7-8).

 

For the first timeline (Apoc. 11), the context is that these things are happening during the time of the rise of the antichrist and culminating with his reign (of 'two and forty months'). This should be the same time as when "Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles; till the times of the nations be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24).

For the second timeline (Apoc. 13), the context is that these things are happening far beyond the living memory of the world except for the elect and members of the first resurrection. But that generation which saw the end of the period of peace will not have passed by the time all is fulfilled. 

 

This would immediately solve the difficulty of the generation that will live to see the period of peace to the very end, as it is not said precisely when this generation begins. We may conclude that 'this generation' is the same which had seen the end of the period of peace all the way to the Parousia.

It is interesting that Our Lord opens His discourse (and all three record it almost the same way) with the warning that false Christs will appear: "Many will come making use of my name; they will say, here I am, the time is close at hand; do not turn aside after them". All three also immediately follow with the end of the peace in the world: "And when you hear of wars and revolts, do not be alarmed by it; such things must happen first, but the end will not come all at once" (Luke 21:8-9~Knox).

He is more explicit later on: "And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; lo, he is here: do not believe. For 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 13:8-9).[40B]

St. Matthew does not say 'false Christs' but only false prophets, and St. Luke does not mention them at all.

So it seems that the first sign of the end of the period of peace is the appearance of false Christs, declaring that it is He, and the end is near; and others who point to these false Christs. At the same time, or very shortly thereafter, there will be heard of wars and rumours of wars.

In the first timeline, the deception may well be between the 'false Christs' and false prophets on the one hand, and the antichrist on the other. The former will deceive many into a false expectation of Christ's return, and the latter will deny it entirely. In our world today, there is no such false Christs, because the devil wishes to lead all to the antichurch (and because the world is not in fact very near the end). It seems necessary for him to very specifically lead everyone to follow the false papacy (rather than away from it) which is also to be somehow greater than the papacy it pretends to be. See Apoc. 13:8 and 2 Thess. 2:4-9.

 

 

One thing to consider about the first timeline is the proximity of the defeat of the antichrist to the end. Different Catholic prophecies indicate that it should not be a very long time. Apocalypse indicates the commencement of this short time with the sounding of the seventh trumpet: "And the seventh angel sounded the trumpet: and there were great voices in heaven, saying: The kingdom of this world is become our Lord’s and his Christ’s, and he shall reign for ever and ever. Amen" (Apoc. 11:15). The world must then be in expectation of the end, but not with the expectation of faith: "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to thy servants the prophets and the saints, and to them that fear thy name, little and great, and shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth" (Apoc. 11:18). It is to be wondered whether at this time there would still be 'false Christs, and false prophets' operating.[40C]

In the second timeline, it begins much the same: There is an expectation of the second coming of Christ, because the Church knew the proximate time was 'a thousand years after the tribulation'. At that time will appear false Christs and false prophets, seeking to divert people away from being faithful to Christ's Word concerning His return. Shortly after they begin to appear, the devil begins to 'seduce the nations', "which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea" (Apoc. 20:9); and it begins with 'wars and seditions'. The rest of it is already described in section III (Part One), and one can go no further with this. However there are still a couple of points which may be made concerning especially the second timeline:

The false Christs may deceive people into thinking they may be 'taken' like the elect: "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven" (Mark 13:27); Our Lord urges His followers to "go ye not therefore after them". The only reason which comes to mind which might make this believable, to people in the world at the time, is the disappearance of the elect, who might have been taken by the armies of 'Gog, and Magog'. Their absence is, until they are gathered by the angels, notable.

 

It is entirely possible, also, that the elect themselves are supplanted during this time, perhaps not all at once, but little by little as the "wars and seditions" work their way around the world. In that case, the 'false Christs' may also represent false elect, which is why Our Lord said "For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many" (Matt. 24:5); or "Take heed you be not seduced; for many will come in my name, saying, I am he; and the time is at hand: go ye not therefore after them" (Luke 21:8). In this case, the words 'in my name' might mean 'as though one of the elect'.

 

These scenarios concerning the false Christs, though somewhat contradictory, may even operate simultaneously as the devil knows how to work with contradiction. 

Lastly, the main point of the eschatology is to describe the circumstances of Our Lord's return, and how important it is not to be deceived: Not to follow after false Christs; not to expect the Parousia immediately when there is wars and rumour of wars after there has not been such things for a very long time; and to "take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly" (Luke 21:34).

It almost seems as if Our Lord were describing the devil's attempt to subvert the meaning and circumstances of His Second Coming. There might be many, inspired by the devil, asking "Where is Christ ?" when the thousand years are finished and He is not seen; even after several wars have come to pass and the rumour of more continues; and additionally, "signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves" (Luke 21:25); and even such "great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect", if the elect were there to warn them (Matt. 24:24).[40D]

Perhaps after the devil is loosed again, and begins to seduce the world, many do not want to heed the signs of the end of the world; though they know it by the signs, and also by the time that has passed as the period of peace, one thousand years.

Many might have let their "hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and the cares of this life" and do not want to think about it all ending soon.

Those who keep faith and wait for Our Lord despite everything that is happening "shall be hated by all men for [His] name’s sake" (Luke 21:17). Our Lord forewarns, "look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them" (Mark 13:9). In the context of all of this, is that testimony about the imminent Second Coming; that the kingdom is near, despite the denials of many and the false signs and wonders and false Christs and false prophets ?

 

"And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost" (Mark 13:11). One will not have to explain why everything is happening; but the main point concerns the expectation of the Second Coming.

"And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached" (Mark 13:10). This verse, given in between the previous two, indicates another possible interpretation: Not only that the Word is preached first to all nations, but also that the imminent Second Coming is also thus preached to all nations, with the admonishment to all to be in the state of grace and to keep watch.

 

40A.  As for how this is supposed to work, we do not yet know. It likely has something to do with the book of life being unsealed; it might be something reserved for the end-times. We know the last beast, the 'eighth', comes up out of the abyss; the 'first resurrection' somehow is its opposite. That is as far as we can go for now.

 

40B.  The differences in the Gospel accounts seems to mean that whatever detail is not common to all three has a different meaning according to the timeline. For example, only St. Luke reported that Jerusalem would be surrounded with an army, and then trodden-over by it, but instead both St. Mark and St. Matthew wrote of the 'abomination of desolation' in the holy place. According to the timeline which is fulfilled, the 'holy place' thus mentioned is not necessarily in Jerusalem. Could be Rome; could be Fatima. It could be two separate events: one around Jerusalem, and one concerning the holy place.

40C. It seems that the world did not, after the antichrist, have a very great expectation of the second coming of Christ, but instead remained in rebellion. This would be the great apostasy in the first timeline. To them who kept the faith is addressed the words of the eschatological discourse, as they would be taking heed (and would convince some of their neighbours at the least).

 

40D.  Our Lord knows the devil will try to deceive the world concerning the Second Coming; He warns against it; and the devil knows He warns against it and will try to subvert the warning. It is almost circular. Our Lord's words concerning His Second Coming causes the devil to try to subvert them, which means Our Lord warns against that subversion, and the devil will try to undermine that, etc.

(Back to footnotes Part Two)