Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saint Malachy, Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world, the last five Popes
WorkofGod.org ^ | n/a | WorkofGod

Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation

Saint Malachy 
Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world.

Note: The Church does not lean on private revelation for doctrinal matters, but it does not oppose to the faithful obtaining benefit from them so long as they don't go against our faith.  

This analysis focuses on the last five Popes in the context of the prophecies of Saint Malachy.

+ + +  

Saint Malachy was born in Amagh Ireland in 1094, he lived a religious life as a monk, then he was ordained priest and finally Bishop. He was canonized in 1199 by Pope Clement III. His biography was compiled by Saint Bernard, a contemporaneous saint.

He made a pilgrimage to Rome and during the end of the year 1139 and the beginning of 1140 had a series of visions about 112 Popes from Celestine III, elected Pontiff in 1130 until the last Pope who is described in his list as Peter Romanus.

After the last Roman Pontiff, Saint Malachy predicts the end of the world.

The Benedictine historian Arnold Wion was the first person to mention these prophecies in his book Lignum Vitae, published in 1559.

These prophecies are short, but they have demonstrated to be very accurate, even though in the time of their publication they caused much controversy as some claimed that they were falsified.

The book of prophecies of Saint Malachy was published originally in 1969 by Colin Smythe Ltd. in England, with the title "Prophecies of St. Malachy and St. Columbkille."

Tan Books published the book in the United States in 1973 with the title "Prophecies of Saint Malachy" its author is Peter Bander.

The foreword reads like this:

In publishing THE PROPHECIES OF SAINT MALACHY, Colin Smythe Limited have produced an instructive and entertaining book.

There is great deal of instant information in Peter Bander's nutshell biographical accounts of the popes who occupied the Roman See since the year 1143 to our present time - and indeed of the antipopes as well. The remarkable way in which the visions St Malachy is alleged to have had, are shown to apply to the succesive individual popes is most amusing. Is it not the case to repeat: "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"? (If it is not true, it is well rhymed)

Whatever one may think of the genuineness of the prophecies attributed to Saint Malachy, here is a fascinating study which provides the curious reader with much profit and pleasure.

Archbishop H.E. Cardinale
Apostolic Nuncio to Belgium and Luxemburg, until recently Apostolic Delegate to Great Britain.

It is curious to think that whenever there is a Conclave, the Cardinals read these prophecies of the saint, and even though they are not ecclesiastic authority they give an idea of what has happen and of what is to occur.

Prophecies of Saint Malachy

This study is an analysis based on private revelation and observations of what is taking place now. It is not to be taken as an official position of the Church. It is good to remind us of the words of the Lord: "stay awake."

The last five popes are mentioned with the following titles: 
Flos Florum
De medietate Lunae
De Labore Solis
Gloria Olivae
Petrus Romanus


Flos Florum - Flower of flowers

Saint Malachy Prophecies, Popes, end of the worldPope Paul VI 
Pontiff from 1963 to 1978. 

Giovanni Battista Montini. In his coat of arms there are three "fleurs de lis"

With great success he concluded Vatican Council II, he made rigorous reforms to the Roman Curia, he traveled the five continents and was called peregrine pope .  In 1965 he was well received and accepted at his address to the UN. Author of the encyclicals
opulorum progressio (1967), Humanae vitae July 24, 1968. He died in August 6, 1978, feast of the Transfiguration.

De medietate Lunae - Of the half moon

Saint Malachy Prophecies,Popes, end of the worldPapa Juan Pablo I ' Abino Luciani
Pontiff for 33 days.

He was born on 17 of October 1912 in Forno di Canale, called now Canale de Agordo, he was baptized the same day by his midwife, for fear of his death, he was later baptized by a priest.

After a life dedicated to the Church as a priest, he was elected Pope during the second day of the Conclave in August 26, 1978. He died of cardiac attack in September 28 1978, thirty three days after the beginning of his papacy.

"De la media luna" Of the half moon is a very accurate description regarding his beginning and also his short pontificate. Even his name Abino Luciani means white light, it has been mentioned that the most important events of his life took place in dates of half moon.


De Labore Solis -
From the toil of the sun - or - Of the eclipse of the sun.

Pope  John Paul II 
Pontiff from 1978 to 2005

This description fits John Paul II perfectly, since he emerged as a especial light for the Catholic Church, promoting the faith from all angles. The works of John Paul II were truly the work of God, the labor of the sun.

The second meaning of "De labore solis" is a solar eclipse, in which the sun seems to struggle in order to give its light. Perhaps the fact that John Paul II, was a very Marian Pope who had a special devotion to the Virgin Mary, the woman clothed with the sun that appears in the Apocalypse, suggests that the sun (Our Lord) has been temporarily eclipsed by the moon (Our Lady). 

John Paul II was a great humanist and peacemaker, a traveler Pope, proclaimer of the gospel in more than 130 countries throughout the world, author of many apostolic letters, encyclicals and books. Canonizer of more saints in his pontificate than any other Pope in all history. During his last years as Pope he concluded his pontificate proclaiming the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary and the Eucharist.

Year 1997. God the Son
Year 1998. God the Holy Spirit

Year 1999. God the Father
Year 2000 
24 December 1999 - 6 January 2001Great Jubilee. 

Year 2002-2003. Year of the Holy Rosary, institution of the Luminous mysteries.16 October 2002 - 31 October 2003
Year 2005. The Holy Eucharist.
17 October 2004 - 29 October 2005

Gloria Olivae - The Glory of the olive

Benedict XVI 
Joseph Ratzinger
Starts Pontificate in April 2005

He chose his name in honor of Saint Benedict, author of the very strict rule of the Benedictines.

His motto is "Co-worker of the Truth."

He has been known even before becoming Pope as a conservative man, ready to defend the Catholic principles that represent the truth of the teachings of Christ.

Our new Pontiff is covered under the sign of the olive according to the prophecies of St. Malachy

The branches of the olive were symbols of peace and victory for Noah after the flood. Throughout history, we know that olive branches have made crowns for kings and athletes as symbols of power and glory. The olive tree thrives in silent areas, such as the garden of olives where Jesus suffered his agony before being arrested by the soldiers.

Olive oil has anointed kings, saints, popes and in a especial way all Christians.

The leaves and the oil of the olive tree have medicinal properties, derived from the oleic acid which is an anti cancer component. The good kitchen cannot exist without olive oil. The best paints have olive oil base, to give them luster and to increase their durability.

The olive is a symbol of peace, abundance, glory and purification.

The Church has been through a period of light, and now is the the time to celebrate and pick up the fruits of the previous pontificate of John Paul. It is quite possible that they will bring many conversions and an increase in the faith especially from the young people.

With the purifying properties of the olive, our new Pontiff comes to challenge error.  He presents himself exposing the truth of our faith with a special courage, he is prepared to heal the cancer of heresy, the infection of apostasy and to promote the health of our Catholic faith.

According to the prophecies of Saint Malachy, Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope before the last one, named "Gloria Olivae" which means the glory of the olive, it is to be a time of glory and rejoicing for the true Church.   

Due to the straightforwardness of our new Pontiff, great opposition is expected, but the Spirit of God is with him and we are in good hands.

Petrus Romanus - Peter Roman

The apostle Peter was the first Pope of the Church, elected directly by our Lord Jesus Christ:

You are Peter, the rock. On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in Heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Peter, the same as Christ, drank of the same chalice of suffering when he died as a martyr.

The body of Christ, the Church represents our Lord Jesus Christ.

The last two pontiffs will have to face the fury of the enemy who will make a violent persecution to Christianity. Faithful as Peter, the last Pontiff will take care of his flock in the midst of the attacks of the enemy. 

2 Thessalonians 3-4 speaks of the apostasy of the last times before the second coming of Christ, when evil will be defying everything that is sacred. The man of iniquity, or the anti-Christ will take his seat in the temple of God. 

This does not necessarily means the embodiment of the devil but if could mean the evil that is being accepted broadly when human beings who are temples of the spirit of God are being desecrated by their own wickedness. 

Just as the Lord lived, taught us, gave us spiritual food and saved us by his death on the cross, the Church being the mystical body of Christ has a similar task. Therefore the church is to be persecuted, insulted and finally crucified, in preparation for the coming of the Lord.

But just as the Lord rose after his death, the Church will also be resurrected for the Glory of God.

No one knows the day nor the hour, but the Lord tells us to be ready.

The prophecies of Saint Malachy end like this:

In the persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations after which the seven hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; popes; prophecy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 401-413 next last
To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
But Christ did not give the "keys" exclusively to Peter, and the early church fathers, you know, "tradition" did not believe that later assertion by Rome either, as I have already cited.

Since Jesus used the words "keys", and specifically named "Peter". I don't see what the misunderstanding is. Add to that Jesus' singular commission of Peter as the shepherd, and your position is really a head-scratcher. Review Isaiah 22:20-24 for context of Jesus' words.

So much for the "unanimous consent of the fathers".

It's hard to debate someone who doesn't understand the basics of Catholic theology. Until you actually apply yourself to serious study and reflection, you're not going to get far in the subject matter.

301 posted on 10/17/2007 4:19:18 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
Yes, that "creative literalness" allows Rome to redefine things when it suits the present agenda.

Re-define? There was only one universally accepted definition of the Christian faith until 1500 or so. Who did the re-defining again?

Do you have any examples of "re-defining", or is this just another demonstration of throwing pejorative commentary at the wall until something sticks?

302 posted on 10/17/2007 4:22:47 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
But Christ did not give the "keys" exclusively to Peter, and the early church fathers, you know, "tradition" did not believe that later assertion by Rome either, as I have already cited.

Since Jesus used the words "keys", and specifically named "Peter". I don't see what the misunderstanding is. Add to that Jesus' singular commission of Peter as the shepherd, and your position is really a head-scratcher. Review Isaiah 22:20-24 for context of Jesus' words.

The early church fathers did NOT interpret Matthew 24:18 in the manner of Roman papal primacy at all.

So much for the "unanimous consent of the fathers". It's hard to debate someone who doesn't understand the basics of Catholic theology.

Which parts, they have been changed and redefined many times.

Until you actually apply yourself to serious study and reflection

Oh, but I have and do, which is why I reject the Roman Catholic church as a true church.

303 posted on 10/17/2007 4:25:22 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
Odd, I have cited early church fathers who contradict Rome's assertion of a Roman papal primacy. Take it up with them.

Since St. Paul at one time was described in the Bible as hating Christians does that mean he never become a Christian? Can we hang St. Paul on his presence at the stoning of Stephen and declare that he's rotting in hell because of it? Because certain Church Fathers gave contrasting thought to the Primacy of Rome, does that indicate they didn't recant their position? They didn't show up to the faith with all the right answers, and for many it took many decades to reach an understanding of the Truth. However, they were all, eventually, each at their own point and time, allegiant to Rome.

If I took a snapshot of your youth and said, well Missey Loosey Goosey, at the age of 17, did such and such, therefore she never became a true Christian, would that be an accurate picture of your life and beliefs? I mean, really. Cherry-picking is dangerous sport and only leads one down the path of error.

304 posted on 10/17/2007 4:31:35 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
Yes, that "creative literalness" allows Rome to redefine things when it suits the present agenda. Re-define?

Yes, redefine.

There was only one universally accepted definition of the Christian faith until 1500 or so.

Wrong again. The Greeks reject Roman Catholicism as apostate based on several points, one being papal primacy and another being the filioque.

Who did the re-defining again?Rome has and continues to do so.

Do you have any examples of "re-defining"

I've already named one, of the redefining of "tradition" by which Trent declared and empoyed the Vincentian Principle of "unanimous consent of the fathers" for the establishment of dogma and interpreting Scripture, which Rome has violated in it's eisegetical interpretation of Matthew 16:18 in a pro-Roman papal sense while the early church fathers did the opposite.

Another would be the dogmatic declaration of the Unam Sanctum which requires submission to the pope of Rome in order to "attain salvation", which also has been redefined by Rome in the "Dominus Iesus" and Vatican II.

Those are just a couple for starters.

305 posted on 10/17/2007 4:32:48 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Nice dodge and irrelevant.


306 posted on 10/17/2007 4:33:42 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
The early church fathers did NOT interpret Matthew 24:18 in the manner of Roman papal primacy at all.

The vast majority did. And at what point did those who offered a different interpretation say Peter is NOT the rock? One statement can have multiple interpretations and still be true in all cases. The prophecy of Isaiah to Ahaz, for centuries was rightly applied to Hezekiah, whom the Jews thought for certain was the Messiah. It wasn't until Jesus came that the prophecy saw its total fulfillment in Christ. Both interpretations were accurate. But one pointed to an earthly king that saved Israel, and another pointed to the Heavenly King who would save the world.

Which parts, they have been changed and redefined many times.

Still, nothing but silence on your end. Either come up with some examples or retract this empty accusation.

Oh, but I have and do, which is why I reject the Roman Catholic church as a true church.

Evidence of your scholarship in Catholic theology is severely lacking.

307 posted on 10/17/2007 4:37:09 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

Where’s the irrelevance? Cherry-picking is lazy.


308 posted on 10/17/2007 4:38:52 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
Wrong again. The Greeks reject Roman Catholicism as apostate based on several points, one being papal primacy and another being the filioque.

The Greeks still enjoy Apostolic succession, thus, they are still irrevocably tied to Rome whether they define it that way or not. Your father may disown you, but your still his daughter.

I've already named one, of the redefining of "tradition" by which Trent declared and empoyed the Vincentian Principle of "unanimous consent of the fathers" for the establishment of dogma and interpreting Scripture, which Rome has violated in it's eisegetical interpretation of Matthew 16:18 in a pro-Roman papal sense while the early church fathers did the opposite.

By the way, how was tradition defined prior to Trent? Still you refuse to demonstrate how, in your grossly improper generality, "the Church Fathers" did the opposite. Further, what's really amusing, is that your own standard defeats the possibility that the Father unanimously thought otherwise than Peter was the foundation. If it takes unanimous consent (by your understanding of it), then at worst, Peter is neither positively nor negatively considered the primate of the Church. Given the overabundance of contrary evidence to your POV, the Church rightly believes that the rock is first and foremost Peter, but may be interpreted as his confession, as well, without contradicting the other.

Another would be the dogmatic declaration of the Unam Sanctum which requires submission to the pope of Rome in order to "attain salvation", which also has been redefined by Rome in the "Dominus Iesus" and Vatican II.

What is this re-defining exactly? Since "He who hears you, hears Me", this declaration is correct.

309 posted on 10/17/2007 4:47:50 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
Eating real, actual, literal flesh of Christ and drinking real, actual, literal blood of Christ would be a violation of the Law against eating human flesh and drinking blood.

Since human sacrifice was also against the Law, was God apostate for sacrificing His Son?

310 posted on 10/17/2007 4:53:35 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
Which is precisely the argument that Athenagorus and Justin Maryr used when refuting the early charges that the early Christians were eating human flesh and drinking human blood.

Didn't you read Justin Martyr's first apology to Emperor Antoninus?

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

311 posted on 10/17/2007 4:59:31 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

As for Athenagorus, I don’t see where he’s refuting the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ. There’s a difference between the accidents and the substance. It’s a bloodless sacrifice because, frankly, the species is wine, not blood. The substance of the wine is Jesus’ blood, however, as the substance of a human being is his or her soul. Each is hidden under a different species. In the case of the Eucharist, it’s bread and wine. In the case of a human being, it’s bones and tissue.

The same argument applies to abortion. The microscopic embryo might be composed of “cells”, but the substance is a human soul. The inability of abortionists to understand this marks the wide gulf between what we believe and what they believe.


312 posted on 10/17/2007 5:09:23 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

>> It has been a long standing doctrine of Rome that the Roman church and pope of Rome are the supreme rulers of both the ecclesiastical realm as well as the temporal realm. <<

Doctrine is eternal. Eternal is antonymical to temporal. Hence, doctrine can never describe the temporal. The Vatican was once supreme ruler of the temporal realm of much of Europe. It is not today.


313 posted on 10/17/2007 5:11:12 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
It's hard to debate someone who doesn't understand the basics of Catholic theology. Until you actually apply yourself to serious study and reflection, you're not going to get far in the subject matter.

You do your point of view a disservice when you make a silly statement like this. It's quite clear she's done her homework. You just don't like her conclusions. There's a lot of dishonesty flying about on this thread.

314 posted on 10/17/2007 5:12:49 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
The Greeks reject Roman Catholicism as apostate based on several points, one being papal primacy and another being the filioque.

A point I made earlier, though (I must admit) in an oblique way.

315 posted on 10/17/2007 5:14:17 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

>> Every RC writer I’ve read, which is not a small number, do indeed say “Peter the Roman” is the Antichrist. <<

Yet you name not a single one. Even with the help of the internet. Here’s my main reason for thinking you’re making stuff up: Very few Catholic sources even think that the “Peter the Roman” prophecy is authentic at all, and don’t, therefore, care to interpret nonsense. Here’s another problem: Catholic doctrine holds that any apostate pope is by definition an anti-pope. The antiChrist is apostate.


316 posted on 10/17/2007 5:19:25 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Uncle Chip

Actually, the Catholic doctrine is that the bread and wine each are transformed into the body and the blood of Christ. Each contains both.


317 posted on 10/17/2007 5:51:29 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

By that argument, Jesus is not present with us at all.


318 posted on 10/17/2007 5:52:29 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
The early church fathers did NOT interpret Matthew 24:18 in the manner of Roman papal primacy at all.

The vast majority did.

I know that is what your religion has taught you but in reality the opposite is true.

319 posted on 10/17/2007 5:59:21 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

>> Eating real, actual, literal flesh of Christ and drinking real, actual, literal blood of Christ would be a violation of the Law against eating human flesh and drinking blood. Which is precisely the argument that Athenagorus and Justin Maryr used when refuting the early charges that the early Christians were eating human flesh and drinking human blood. <<

Why would Justin Martyr have to clarify that Christians aren’t cannibals? Because he also said this: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Justin was only asserting that they weren’t eating human meat.


320 posted on 10/17/2007 6:02:50 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 401-413 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson