Is Pope Francis the Final Roman Pontiff?

June 2, 2013 | 19 comments

Have you heard? Tom Horn and Cris Putnam have written the book of books demonstrating Pope Francis to be the last pope. Yes, folks, the end of the world is upon us. The book is called Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here, published in 2012. This is not to be confused with their sequel, Exo-Vaticanus, published in 2013, which exposes a secret plan of the Vatican to usher in the arrival of a savior who is actually an alien a la E.T. I suppose now that the end is here and all, we need to know just what the end is going to look like. Explaining that one would require another post.

The 2012 book is based on an increasingly popular alleged prophecy, which is really more of a litany of prophecies, of the great reformer Bishop St. Malachy (1094-1148), who served as bishop of Conner, then Down, and finally as archbishop of Armagh, all in Ireland. The authors claim St. Malachy predicted the final 112 popes beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143), not by name, but by a short epithet, or motto, for each, leading us to the final pope before the Apocalypse, who is none other than our own Pope Francis. 

The "prophecy" in question is real in the sense that it exists and is claimed to be written by St. Malachy. But when examined critically, it turns out neither  to be true (meaning it contains things that don't hold up the level of scrutiny required of a true prophecy) nor actually written by St. Malachy. At least, that is what the overwhelming majority of modern scholars believe. The so-called "prophecy of St. Malachy" appears to be a fraud.

There are multiple takes on the "prophecy" itself, and not all who believe it also believe a space alien is going to be revealed as "savior" by the Vatican, either. Over the centuries, it has been believed by Catholics of note, Cornelius a Lapide among them. So it is not as though its fraudulent nature is self-evident. 

From what I have read from those who believe the prophecy to be of supernatural origin today, they generally agree on three central points: Francis is the final pope, the end is therefore upon us, and St. Malachy proves it to be so.

Problems with the Prophecy

While there are more problems with this prophecy than we have space to address in this post (I recommend Jimmy Akin's blog for more of these problems), perhaps its major problems, or categories of problems, could be broken down into two: 1. The prophecy was not penned by St. Malachy; therfore, it is a fraud. 2. The epithets, or mottos, that describe each of the 112 popes are fraught with ambiguities to the point that some are impossible to defend as true prophecy.

Who Wrote the Prophecy of St. Malachy?

The prophecy was first published in AD 1590-1595 by a Benedectine monk named Arnold Wion in a book titled Lignum Vitae, which was a history of the Benedictine order. Critics say Wion did more than publish it; he most likely created it. This is evidenced by the fact that the alleged prophetic mottos were remarkably accurate when the popes from Celestine II (pope when St. Malachy was alive and when the "prophecy" was allegedly given to him) until Urban VII (pope when Wion published it) are mentioned. After these popes the epithets become ambiguous and, as we'll see below, some of them virtually impossible to tag to the popes they were supposedly referring to.

When you couple these facts with the facts that St. Bernard of Clairvaux—a close friend of St. Malachy, who wrote the biography of this great saint—never mentions anything of this prophecy, and, indeed, nothing that we know of was recorded about it for the roughly four hundred years between St. Malachy's time and the publication of the prophecy, this is a definite problem.

Proponents argue the prophecy was lost and only rediscovered by Wion, but this hardly answers the problem of why St. Bernard, in whose arms St. Malachy died, would have known nothing of it.

Prophecies Not Prophetic

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the claims of the prophecy can be seen by examining the actual prophetic epithets themselves. The epithets of the popes between Celestine II and Urban VII are generally related to their birthplaces, family names, their coat of arms, or to some title they held before each became pope. And they are generally quite obvious. However, the subsequent popes . . . let's just say their mottos get very interesting at times. Here are some of my favorites. 

Pope Benedict XIV is referred to as “rustic animal”—in Latin, animal rurale. This means something akin to what southerners might call a "country boy." But Benedict XIV was anything but a country boy. He was a brilliant scholar educated in Rome at the Collegium Clementium, which he entered at the age of 13! He was well-known for his learning in science as well as theology, philosophy, and canon law. He was also an exceptional administrator and a man of many talents, respected within and without the Church. He was anything but animal rurale!

Proponents of the prophecies attempt to say this could refer to his "plodding determination" like an ox in a field. Can anyone say "Weak?"

Pope Clement XIII is referred to as "Rose of Umbria." Supporters of the prophecies attempt to say this is a reference to the several Franciscans this pope canonized. You know. . . roses . . . St. Francis. The "Rose of Umbria."

Really?

Clement IV is referred to as "Swift Bear." Proponents claim his family, the Ganganelli family, had a running bear on their coat of arms, but there is no evidence for this.

Pius VII is referred to as "Rapacious Eagle." There is nothing even close to this in relation to the Pope himself, so supporters claim this may be a reference to the arms of Napoleon who reigned during the time of Pope Pius. It definitely seems as though we are stretching things here in Jonathan Edwards-esque fashion.

John Paul I is referred to as "of the half moon." Your guess is as good as mine.

And finally, we should mention our present Pope Francis. He is referred to as "Peter the Roman" in the prophecy. The best the proponents of the prophecy have been able to do is point out that our good Cardinal Bergoglio took the name of St. Francis, whose father's name was Pietro. Of course! Plus, even though he is Argentinian, his parents are Italian. Huh? Huh?

There are many more examples we could cite here demonstrating the overwhelming evidence that the so-called "prophecy of St. Malachy" is a hoax, but perhaps it would be best to close now with a word to the wise.

We must always be careful with private revelations—and that is essentially what this is—whether approved or not. The "prophecy of St. Malachy" has not been approved by the Church, but the Church teaches us that we must never place divine faith in any private revelation even if it is approved. Their role is to lead us to Christ in his Church and to the divine faith that is able to save our souls. They are means and never ends in themselves.

If we keep our focus on Christ, his Church, the Eucharist, and our Blessed Mother, we will never go wrong.


Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of Christian...

The Shocking Truth About The Pope And The Church Fathers
In his 5-CD Set The Shocking Truth About The Pope And The Church Fathers, Tim Staples shows that it's not only the Bible that provides ample evidence of the papacy established by Christ, but also the wealth of writings by the Fathers of the Church.

Comments by Catholic.com Members

#1  jeffrey erwin - pewaukee, Wisconsin

Pope Francis I is not Peter the Roman. But the reason for that is not that this prophecy is invalid, but rather that there are 113 prophecies, and Francis I is only number 112.
For Pope 112 we have: "In psecutione. extrema S.R.E. sedebit." "He will sit in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church."
These two lines for #112 are clearly separate from the final paragraph for Pope 113, Petrus Romanus.
See the prophecy as it was actually written on Wikipedia. Also note the out of place period in #112. This indicates an interruption. Catholic prophecy indicates that there will be a duration when the Papacy is vacant before the advent of Petrus Romanus. Considering the dangerous and turbulent times that we are living in and will face in the future, I believe that we ought to take the "Prophecy of the Popes" very seriously .

December 13, 2013 at 6:25 pm PST
#2  Addy Fisher - Singapore, Northern Mariana Islands

The link/clue by Malachi is to references 'relating' to the popes.... Well, the last link/clue was Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman)...

On 17th December 2013 canonization - beatification or making of a saint in Peter FABER (SJ) whom was born in Holy Roman Empire (in the Duchy of Savoy then Roman not France)
As Peter Le Fevre (Petrus Romanus) - 17th December 2013 was interestingly pope Francis I's 77th birthday...

That along with current calculations on 666 - on 7 names used by modern papacy that Pius, Leo, Gregory, John, Paul, John-Paul & Benedict.... An 8th new name will give a new ***** from Benedict (abdicate at 665 number) and new name Francis = 1

The prophecy is now clearer n you may wish to share as I am a Roman Catholic that knows ever since the antichrist infiltrated the Curia we are being watched due to naughty behavior

January 5, 2014 at 8:34 am PST
#3  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Jeffrey, there is no 113th Pope in the prophecy. And there is no prophecy for the 113th Pope. But I'll tell you what. I'll make a prediction. We will have a successor for Francis and for his successor as well. If that is the case, will you acknowledge the prophecy itself to be a fraud?

January 20, 2014 at 11:59 am PST
#4  jeffrey erwin - pewaukee, Wisconsin

Tim, thanks for noticing my post. Take a good look at page #311 of the Lignum Vitae. You may see it at Wikipedia:
110. De labore solis.
111. Gloria olivae.
112. In psecutione. extre-
ma S.R.E. sedebit.
113. Petrus Romanus, qui
pascet oves in mul-
tis tribulationibus:
quibus transactis ci-
vitas septicollis di-
ruetur, & Judex tre
medus judicabit po
pulum suum. Finis.
It was Fr. M.J. O'Brien who combined #112 with #113 in in 1880 book about this prophecy:
"In persecution extre-
ma S. R. E. sedebit Pe-
trus Romanus qui pascet
oves in multis trbulati-
onibus, quibus transactis,
civitas septicollis deru-..."
Notice how Fr. O'Brien has altered the original. His book may be seen online. Please state your reasons for thinking that this list stops at 112.
You may write to me directly:
[email protected]

April 21, 2014 at 5:47 pm PST
#5  jeffrey erwin - pewaukee, Wisconsin

My dear Mr. Staples:
It's been over two months. Cat got your tongue? Do you have anything to say that's not just your opinion? You state: "And there is no prophecy for the 113th pope." But you offer no reasons, justifications, or analysis. Can't you do any better?
Regards,
Jeffrey

July 1, 2014 at 6:09 pm PST
#6  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Jeffrey,

To say that "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit" and "Peter the Roman who..." are two separate Popes is untenable, in my opinion. If you attach each of the distinct "prophecies" with Popes, Francis is Pope #112. This is not just my opinion, this is the opinion of most scholars who have examined this prophecy and it is the opinion of many proponents of the prophecy itself as is obvious by the lengths they will go to attach Francis to "Peter the Roman."

So again I say to you. After the next Pope after Francis is elected, and then another, will you acknowledge the "prophecy" to be a fraud?

Just so you know, after there is another Pope elected after Francis, and then another, you will then see the proponents of the "prophecy" latching on to the idea that there are an indefinite number of Popes between "glory of the olive" (111) and "Peter the Roman" (112) because of the period after "there will sit" in the Peter the Roman prophecy. That is convenient because you can add as many Popes as you like and continue the tomfoolery of the "prophecy."

July 2, 2014 at 8:57 am PST
#7  jeffrey erwin - pewaukee, Wisconsin

Hi Tim,
First of all let me tell you how much I appreciate your "Catholic Answers" forums. I especially liked your "Do Muslims Worship the Same God . . ." blog.

I grant you your right to a negative opinion on the present subject, but I want readers to see a correct numbering of Fr. Wion's paragraphs. An obstacle to our agreement is Fr. O'Brien's translation of the word "sedebit."
From Wiktionary: sedebit:
1. third person singular future active of sedeo.
(Sedeo: 1. I sit. 2. I preside.)

From en.glosbe.com:
Sedebit: he (she, it) will sit, he (she, it) will be seated.

Referencing the Vulgate:
Matt 25.31: "... then shall he sit..."
1 Kings 1.17; "...and he shall sit..."
Lam 3.28: "He sitteth....."
Micah 4.4: "... they shall sit..."
Ezek. 44.3 "...he shall sit..."
Isaiah 16.5: "... he shall sit..."
Zechariah 6.13: "...he ... shall sit..."
Malachi 3.3 " ...he shall sit..."
1 Kings 1.13 " ... he shall sit.."

I find not a single instance of "sedebit" being rendered in English as "there will sit." Therefore I must conclude that paragraph 112 should be translated as: "He will sit in the final persecution. of the Holy Roman Church."

Furthermore, I cannot sign off on the elimination of important punctuation from Fr. Wion's printing of 1595. But that is exactly what one has to do if one wants to conflate paragraph 112 with 113: the period at the end of 112 must be eliminated well as it's 2nd line indentation. Thus three errors are necessary in order to force the two paragraphs into one.

Your associate, Mr. Blackburn, references the Catholic Encyclopedia in support of Fr. O'Brien's transcription and translation. But, as I am sure you are aware, the encyclopedia does sometimes error. (Mr. Aglialoro would, I believe, take issue with its verdict on the Holy Shroud of Turin.)

And now it is appropriate for me answer your question. (My apology that you had to ask twice.) I'm about 70 years now, so am unlikely to witness two successors to Pope Francis, but I will offer you something better. Notice the out of place period after the word "psecutione" in paragraph 112. It is significant. I believe that it indicates an interruption in the papal succession. When Pope Frances leaves his office, there will be an extended period where the papacy is vacant. If this doesn't happen (and God forbid that it should) then you will have my concession that Fr. Wion's "Prophecy of the Popes" is not valid.

Regards,
Jeffrey Erwin

July 9, 2014 at 1:28 pm PST
#8  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Jeffrey,
I'll talk to you after the next conclave. Pope Francis will be 78 in December. :)

July 12, 2014 at 7:08 am PST
#9  Eric H - Aurora, Illinois

If Catholic prophecy is correct and Satan has infiltrated our Church, do any of you honestly believe that the Catholic leadership and apologists would actually persuade us to believe potentially damning evidence ? That is the first thing we need ponder.
Once more, even if this reported 'pope #112' is the last pope, there is no evidence that he might be the anti-Christ spoken of from ages past. If there is a 'pope #113,' then the term 'pope' in the classical sense might not apply considering the evil inherent.
Also, this 'alien' that is spoken of might be a metaphor for someone who represents something foreign to tradition. We do know from scripture that Satan tinkered with man's DNA in the early Old Testament to create 'giants' and such that God destroyed in the Great Flood, so a completely constructed 'foreign being,' as it were, is not completely out of the question.

July 22, 2014 at 6:59 pm PST
#10  Eric H - Aurora, Illinois

I don't care if it comes out of a pope's mouth or a transient's that is living by the wayside, scripture tells us to put everything to the test to make sure it is of the Word.

Once more, I think it is difficult for many of us Catholics to believe that such an abomination could possibly sit in the place of Peter within our once beloved church.

Really, it only makes sense for Satan to corrupt Catholicism as why would he need to corrupt those churches that are already in such a state of dread, as most are ?

July 22, 2014 at 7:06 pm PST
#11  jeffrey erwin - pewaukee, Wisconsin

Eric,
Please enlighten me. I do not know of any "Catholic prophecy" that says that Satan will occupy the seat of St. Peter. Certainly Fr. Wion's Prophecy of the Popes does not say that. As for the anti-Christ, look at this subject from the Jewish perspective: The Messiah was (and is) the Savior of the Jewish people. Therefore the anti-Christ is the destroyer of the same, and none other than Adolf Hitler.

Consider the visions of Pope Pius X: A Pope of the same name (Giuseppe/Joseph) will leave the Vatican walking over the bodies of dead priests and, shortly thereafter, die a cruel death. This vision must refer to Benedict XVI who has the same first name, and it seems to indicate circumstances that would not permit a Papal conclave to take place. This event is indicated in Fr. Wion's prophecy by the out of place period after the word "psecutione" in paragraph number 112.

You note that Pope number 113, Petrus Romanus may be "someone who represents something foreign to tradition," and you are right. Consider a past event: ". . . the tombs opened and the bodies of many holy men rose from the dead, and these, after His resurrection, came out of the tombs, entered the Holy City and appeared to a number of people." "Peter the Roman" can only be one person. He will not need a papal conclave. He was the first Bishop of Rome and will be so again at the time of his resurrection.

Fr. Wion's prophecy notes: ". . .the terrible Judge will judge His people. The end." That is why I say that paragraphs 112 and 113 are the defining statements of the 21st Century.

Peace,
Jeffrey

July 24, 2014 at 12:35 pm PST
#12  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Matthew 16:18-19 tells me we have nothing to worry about. There will be a validly consecrated Pope as successor of Peter until the Second Coming of Christ. Period.

July 28, 2014 at 11:43 am PST
#13  Jake Wagner - Boulder, Colorado

I'm going to throw out a scenario.

What if, the Most High True God, decided that there was so much poison in the Roman Catholic Hierarchical Institution that He took away one Pope's anointing and gave it to another, who has now been exiled by the church but was not canonically elected?

Sounds out there but the God did take Saul's anointing away (1 Samuel 10) and there just happens to be a person who fits this description, claims to be Petrus Romanus (and one of the two witnesses described in Revelations 11). He has a Testimony (as mentioned in Zechariah 5 and the Testimony of the Two Witnesses in Revelations) and is well worth researching.

Also consider The Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) , it states:

“There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.”
(Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)

You can come test his spirit as 1 John 4:1 calls us to do at His website . . .

http://testimonyofthetwowitnesses.com/

July 29, 2014 at 5:45 pm PST
#14  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Jake,
God does not contradict himself. In Session 4, Vatican I declared infallibly:

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

There can be confusion of who truly is the successor of St. Peter, but the we have the guarantee that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. Thus, the Roman Pontiffs will be validly elected in succession until the end of time, just as the Church, guides by the Holy Spirit, said above.

July 31, 2014 at 4:39 am PST
#15  jeffrey erwin - pewaukee, Wisconsin

To the Forum:
In his opinion that the prophecy has only 112 paragraphs, Tim cited "the opinion of most scholars." So I though that I should do my research in this regard, and, indeed, Tim is right. Every critique that I could find of Wion's Prophecy of the Popes lists only 112 paragraphs.

The very first analysis comes just 29 years after the publication of the Lignum Vitae. It is:
"FLORILEGIUM INSULAE SANCTORUM" by Thomas Messingham, 1624. In it I noticed these alterations to Wion's list: the word "psecutione" is no longer abbreviated, the periods that follow the words psecutione and sedebit are eliminated, the paragraph indentation prior to Petrus is eliminated, the comma that follows Romanus is eliminated, the capital "I" in Iudex is reduced, and Finis is rendered in all caps.

Next is Menestrier's "LA PHILOSOPHIE DES IMAGES ENIGMATIQUES," 1694 in which we see Messingham's alterations repeated. In addition the words "suum" and "Finis" are eliminated.

"LES ELEMENS DE L'HISTOIRE," de Vallemont, 1708, repeats the previous alterations.

And Cucherat's "LA PROPHETIE DE LA SUCCESSION DES PAPES," 1873, does no better.

Fr. M. J. O'Brien, in his "An Historical and Critical Account of the So-Called PROPHECY OF ST. MALACHY," 1880, promises us (pg. 17) "a reliable version of the prophecies. . . . transcribed word for word from Wion's book. . ."
But on pages 25 and 82 we find much the same alterations to Wion's original: psecutione is not abbreviated, the periods that follow it and sedebit are eliminated, "Petrus" no longer heads a paragraph, and Judex is not capitalized.

Fr. O'Brien further muddied the waters with his postulation that ". . .any person may suppose as many popes as he pleases before 'Peter the Roman.'" This idea is repeated in the Catholic Encyclopedia and in Catholic Answers. But in Wion's list from the time it was published in 1595 up to 1978, (paragraph #110, "De labore solis,") we see no case of "intervening popes." And we can be sure of this for the simple reason that Pope John Paul II was born on the day of a solar eclipse and interned on the same. So there is absolutely no reason to assume that the idea of "intervening popes" should suddenly be valid. Fr. O'Brien further misinterprets the last word "Finis" as referring to the papal list. It rather refers to the end of time.

Tim says that Fr. Wion himself created his prophecy and I believe that he is correct. That being said, why should any critic, supporter, or other analyst be given the authority to alter its structure? If there was a previous author to Wion then the idea that Fr. Wion made a mistake that needed to be corrected might have validity. But there is no evidence for this. I must conclude that Fr. Wion's original paragraph structure should be accepted over all other transcriptions. Fr. Wion has listed 113 pope prophecies.

Fr. O'Brien refers to the defences of this prophecy as "the sorriest trifling." Tim says that it is "tomfoolery." I would repeat the modern cliché: "You can't make this stuff up." Because, after some 300 years after puplication we arrive at "Religio depopulata." Fr. O'Brien states: "Troubled times are foretold by this. The blood of the martyrs shall flow."

I would like, if I may, make and a note on "Ignis Ardens." In 1903 Marie Curie was awarded the Noble prize for her work on radioactivity of elements. In 1905 Albert Enstien published his "Special Theory of Relativity" which included E=MC/2. Thus the stage was set for the development of a nuclear source of energy and weapons.

Let us give Fr. Wion's paragraphs of his Prophecy of the Popes the correct numbering that they deserve. And let us keep an open mind about them and not dismiss his words with derogatory phases.

Jeffrey in Pewaukee

August 6, 2014 at 8:24 am PST
#16  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Jeffrey,

In response to the above:

I did not "dismiss [the words of this prophecy] with derogatory phrases. I wrote a somewhat lengthy post giving you ample reasons why I reject it. This is not a tough call, in my opinion.

August 13, 2014 at 12:46 pm PST
#17  Robin Henderson - Warwick, Queensland

# El Cajon, California-
I really get a bit hot and bothered at all this " back & forth" really about nothing since nobody can prove the authenticity or the authorship of the prophesies of Malachy...(although I've always been intrigued....love a good roll in the mud of senseless argument about anything...and the ones on religious " truths", "prophesies", "miracles", "relics" etc, are just about as senseless as it can get...)
However....as a 16 yr old whilst in Rome being escorted around the Basilica of San Giovanni Laterano, my sight was directed to the ceiling of this massive edifice around which were just as many mosaics as there had supposedly been occupants of the Chair of St. Peter...That was in 1960 and there were less than half a dozen empty 'frames' awaiting the efigies of the popes to come. I asked, with the unabashed innocence of a normal 20th century teenager, what would hapen when all the places were filled? Oh, you shouln't ask questions like that!...

When as a 13 yr old I had asked where Mrs. CAIN had come from...was she a sister of the brothers Cain & Abel...and wasn't there another lad later?
I wore the "naughty corner" out at my school!
Anyway...wait 'till I roll over and cake my other flank in this glorious slippery stuff...ahhh...Now...about the empty pope frames.
As I recall...after living for a further 50 decades, there were just about 5 places left with the effigy of the current reigning pontiff in gold and brilliantly coloured mosaic glittering much brighter than anything that the siren of the silver screen, Marlene Deitrich, had worn. Lit like a beacon...Urbis et Orbis! (even the blind (gli orbi) could see it. Here was Pope John 23rd...the one who refused to wear the gold-encrusted red velvet papal slippers...he wanted to wear his boots..and very practical if he were to fulfill the propecy "Pastor et Nauta" which broadly meant 'the travelling Pope'...which he became, the only one in decades to leave the confines of the Vatican to venture abroad.
After John 23 came Paul 6, (and I stood for 9 hrs in Piazza St. Peter under the scorching sun...maybe I was lit up like a beacon by then and had somebody noticed they may have proclaimed me female pope Esther and that would have really created a problem in the ceiling of St.Giovanni's...Fortunately that didn't happen and I nearly didn't live to tell this tale...probably why I find a good mud wallow so refreshing.... when on the subject of holinesses I get a bit "hot under the collar."
Then came John-Paul 1...ahh poor chap, doesn't go well for anyone meddling in the Vatican ledgers...although Pell seems in his element both at work and at home in "Domus Australia" with all his like-minded, hobby-sharing ****** confreres!
OOPS..back to holinesses...
So from John 23 to John-Paul 1 that's 3..or 2 not counting the travelling pope of those days. Since then we've seen Ratzinger and now Francis....so, since it seems they are not making any more pope frames at St. Giovanni's...which is what I was told they would do when the spaces ran out (God help us...and begin all over again? Then either Francis is the last Pope....OH, did I forget Woitila? Then Francis is the pope that should't be...because the Malachy prophesy indicated that the last pope will be black ( supposedly a son of the dark raced people) and he will be a Roman (citizen?)
What other interpretation can we put on this that is not so literal?
That his reign will be turbulent, stormy and dark? That the seven hills will be flattened...or maybe, (figuratively speaking) that the seven deadly sins will be the target of considerable contention...you know the list of the seven deadly sins..... among which is defiling the innocent?
So who knows? Is Pope Francis a real pope...or....is he the one who started the new lot of pope frames after the murder of John-Paul 2? Was the holy succession interrupted back then and have we had a line of fake popes ever since...so its all just a..."pack of cards"?
The only answer I can come up with as I wallow in the mire, is what the Cheshire Cat said to Alice when she protested that she did not want to go among mad people...or fakes. "Oh, you can't help that here, we are all mad...and so are you...otherwise why are you still here listening to me?".
I think I'll be sent to the Naughty Corner in a sec!

September 4, 2014 at 8:04 pm PST
#18  Robin Henderson - Warwick, Queensland

OOPS!...I think I 've lost my numerical ability in my doteage...never mind, ye of greater faith and factual expertise can work out what number goes with what pope...what the heck anyway....its just maths and maybe grey cells!

September 4, 2014 at 8:22 pm PST
#19  Christine Sarmiento - Dau, Pampanga

Hi!

1. About Pope John Paul 1 and 2, maybe the prophecy is just about their names.... half moon then full moon. Maybe its that simple.

2. Good analysis Jeffrey Erwin. I think its probable. I have been reading "Catholic Prophesies" by Yves Dupont.

Those prophesies suggest the same explanation. Maybe Peter the Roman is also the Holy Pontiff that will work with the great Monarch.

Prophesies anyway are there to warn us so that we will be aware and that our relationship with the Lord grow deeper by prayer, fasting, penance.

September 23, 2014 at 10:07 pm PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.